The Internet: A Second Opinion (Roberto Verzola/The Philippines)

[dietz@koma.free.de (Karl Dietz)]

hi, die ard-bildung gibt es via machno-LW-gate auch im web. karl



=================================================================

## Daten zur weitergeleiteten Nachricht:

## Ersteller: holger@deep.hb.provi.de (Holger Bruns)
## Betreff:   The Internet: A Second Opinion (Roberto Verzola/The Philippines)
## Erstellt:  09.05.99
## Msg ID:    E10gG98-0007Hz-00@mail.bremen.pop.de
## Quelle:    /ard-bildung
## Groesse:   16KB

## Kuerzungen sind mit (...) kenntlich gemacht.

==============================cut=================================


>               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
>its opposite:
>
>     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".
>

(...)