[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The Internet: A Second Opinion (Roberto Verzola/The Philippines)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: The Internet: A Second Opinion (Roberto Verzola/The Philippines)
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Karl Dietz)
- Date: 18 May 1999 18:51:00 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Organization: Karl Dietz
- Sender: email@example.com
hi, die ard-bildung gibt es via machno-LW-gate auch im web. karl
## Daten zur weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
## Ersteller: firstname.lastname@example.org (Holger Bruns)
## Betreff: The Internet: A Second Opinion (Roberto Verzola/The Philippines)
## Erstellt: 09.05.99
## Msg ID: E10gG98-0007Hzemail@example.com
## Quelle: /ard-bildung
## Groesse: 16KB
## Kuerzungen sind mit (...) kenntlich gemacht.
> THE INTERNET: A SECOND OPINION
> by Roberto Verzola
> A few decades ago, a technology was born that inventors promised
>would revolutionize education, and raise to new heights the cultural level
>of millions, and abolish ignorance. No, the technology was neither the
>computer nor the Internet; it was television. TV, claimed its original
>proponents, would usher a new era of low-cost access to education and
>learning for the masses.
> Today, the TV set is called an "idiot box".
> Those who are enamoured with Internet technology and expect it to
>usher a new information age should look at our experience with TV. These
>factors turned television technology, which promised such high hopes, into
> 1. Governments tightly restricted who may set up TV stations.
>Instead of allowing anybody with the knowledge and resources,
>governments made TV broadcasting illegal, except for the very few who got
>government licences. The original technology itself allowed only a few
>channels, and reinforced the elitist ownership structure in the industry.
> 2. With few exceptions, many governments privatized the
>television industry. This put profit-making ahead of other
>informative, educational or cultural considerations. Even government
>stations had to justify their existence by competing with private
>stations on the basis of their bottomline.
> 3. Those who controlled TV content made it a marketing medium. TV
>became the medium for selling products, services, and life styles. All
>other content became secondary. Thus, most television content was
>"hard-sell" advertising (actual commercials), "soft-sell" marketing (shows
>and movies that sold a life style), or "entertainment" (whose captive
>audience was actually sold to advertisers, with occasional news programs
>or educational films thrown in as concession to "public service".