Nothing is ever entirely new.

According to Bernstein and his sources, the 24 character Greek Alphabet increased literacy and set the stage for prose, that is, text that was meant to be read to oneself, not performed for a crowd. The performed texts were not only used for entertainment value but also for their ability to communicate the culture of the dominant powers to the viewer- their version of history, custom, and the duty of the citizenry. To me, this suggests that the plays/spoken texts would have been constructed in a manner that tended to have fewer differing interpretations than the prose intended for a more solitary and introspective audience (of one). This means that the construction of the spoken texts would have to tend to the objective more than the subjective- how else could it accomplish it's goal of cultural transference (well)?

To me, this is clearly illustrated with the current state of the mass media, particularly of the coverage and dynamic of the presidential campaign. The spoken words of the reporters and the advertisements are carefully chosen to provide a clear version of the history, values, and 'duty' of the citizenry (to vote for their particular choice of candidate). The purpose of the texts that are performed by either reporters or the candidates (or their representatives) is to ally them with YOU, to get you to see yourself in their version of reality and ally yourself with their ideas. Just watch some ads or coverage, and try to be conscience of the effects, you'll see it.

The blogosphere, on the other hand, is cutting and biting, alienating and edgy. Why the difference? One big difference, according to Bernstein, is that blogs are meant to read to oneself alone, and the proper response is to reply in kind. While this is not a solitary act, the parties viewing the text are not usually in any type of physical contact, and thus removed from the act of communication and interpretation, just as early readers of prose found themselves. This is not to say that bloggers are more honest or objective, just that the process of their publication would seem to be an environment where a new idea could arise, one that is actually revolutionary, and not created with mass appeal and the accompanying subjective interpretation of reality.

I don't know what I'm driving at, exactly, but I know I'm trying to saying something about the effects of a mass media that is easily understood on an almost sub-conscious level- it is very powerful, and capable of appealing to base instincts, meaning it can lie more easily and blatantly. It is no wonder to me that with the dawn of prose and individual interpretation that the ideas of natural rights and liberty began to flourish.