Are there any new forms of communication technology that you do approve of?
What is the strangest experience you encountered during your research for your Land of Lincoln book?
In your article, “We Can’t Handle the Truth”, written this past July, you spoke about how so many people have been punished for speaking the truth. Can speak about this in regards to your experience as former President Bush’s speechwriter.
The first impression I had when I saw Andrew Ferguson give his speech on his book, the only thing I could think of was how much he looked like Einstein but with a better hairdo. He was comical, but not overly so; I got a chuckle when he said “I wanted to be a writer so I didn’t have to speak.’ But he wasn’t a bad speaker; his introduction to and passages from his book were very compelling and gave insight into a world I never knew existed: Lincoln Fandom. I had no clue there were so many books written about Lincoln, and Ferguson’s explanation of them shed a great deal of light on how there was such a variety of books and such vast similarities and differences between them at the same time.
Ferguson gets to the crux of the matter when he says that “Lincoln was a great national possession that we have had privatized.”Our readings this semester, from Adonro and Horkheimer to Benjamin have talked about this sort of branding in politics. It seems like as Americans we like to use dynamic public figures like Lincoln to justify our own way of viewing the world. But there’s great promise in the fact that even though people glorify such different aspects of the man, we still come together on his belief that “all men are created equal.” His anecdote on the Czechoslovakian concentration camp victim was a reminder of why we look up to Lincoln and why we write so many books about him.
Ferguson’s course in writing this book was an honorable and desirable one; to set out to find a universal Lincoln beyond the Lincoln restaurant, Lincoln pest control, and Lincoln towing. Also, his story about the Thai restaurant was fascinating. He said that when he saw the “Thai restaurant in an Arab neighborhood making a Buddhist statue to honor a Jewsh president, my interest is peaked.” You and me both! A quick note on the article titled “History Hobby,” where he says the Lincoln field is where “the most interesting writing and research is often done by hobbyists. It's been this way from the beginning.” I think Ferguson was right to honor this man who contributed to this field by just being interested in his and our nation’s history and it’s a shame he didn’t get more attention. People who dig through the information out of a sole desire to find the facts and the persona beyond how others are painted are true patriots.
When it comes to the Obama article, Ferguson reviewed Barack’s two books “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams of My Fathers.” I found it interesting that he would say that “there's never a chance that Obama will come down on any side other than the conventionally liberal views of the Democratic party mainstream. It turns out that much of his on-the-one-hand judiciousness is little more than a rhetorical strategy,” when he spent the entire review talking up his use of the ‘on-the-one-hand judiciousness.’ It seems to me more like after reading the book he just wasn’t ready to give up his own ideology even though Obama so eloquently made the case for his. But he doesn’t hate the entire article; he compliments Barack’s writing ability, especially in the first book.
He was kind of patronizing though in the Twits on Parade article. The story was about the website Twitter, which allows users to send periodic updates to their personal webpage from their phone or web browser. Barack Obama is the #1 user of twitter. His indictment of the usage of internet screen names is all too true when he says “In the real world you can either have me take your political opinions seriously, or you can call yourself "dogmeat69." You can't do both.” The immaturity and randomness of the handles people choose to associate themselves with is totally damaging to the credibility of the people that use these sites. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine that people don’t take these platforms more seriously because I want them to promote our democracy and public discourse. Still, I believe all is not lost for the new age of technology, but from Ferguson’s conclusion, it seems he does.
Questions for Andrew Ferguson:
What would Lincoln say about a black man running for the United States, both in policy and social impact?
Do you have any hope in the future of technology when it comes to advancing our democracy and discussions of politics?
Who do you support in the upcoming election and what do you think of the media’s coverage of the election?
These readings and pieces by Andrew Ferguson had to be my favorites of the entire semester thus far. I was thoroughly, thoroughly entertained by all of them and even the video caught my attention so that I watched the entire thing rather then simply the first half hour. I also happen to have been raised in the Chicagoland area and yet I had never given much thought to Abraham Lincoln. While in elementary school, of course the teachers gave extra emphasis to our beloved sixteenth president and in fifth grade we even made a trip to our state’s capital and hometown of L-dog. However, while I had to write a five paragraph paper, (which is very intensive for a fifth grader), about Abe, I still never formed much of an attachment to the man.
Having seen this video reading and interview, I now want to read “
I also really enjoyed “The Literary Obama” which had several highlights but, in particular I thought the opening really drew a person in. Who knew (slash cared) that Barack was the first black law student to hold the title of president for the Harvard Law Review in 1990? Now the correlation is intriguing. He has a knack for pulling the right strings to get you sucked into a piece and this was a simple example of how to get you interested enough in Obama’s past as an author to click the “next” arrow at the end of the internet page. The writing styles of
In terms of some more specifics in the questions you posed, I feel like he is a republican friendly writer but I didn’t find any of his writings negative toward the democrats out there either. He just seemed to have a chip on his shoulder about both parties. Even in “Literary Obama” there were snide remarks and compliments together both buried in the text about our potential president. He seems to be a man more about calling it as he sees it then making the point to be one way or the other. His categorization of Lincoln buffs is that of intriguing, admirable, wonder and I would say the commentary he makes with these men and their chosen paths is part mocking and part enjoying their work and the effort they put into being Abe. His passion for the past president himself is obvious, therefore I would say from that alone he has a certain amount of respect for these men who end up donning the
-In your travels and encounters with the many
-How long did you spend working on your book? From collecting information to publishing?
-Could you discuss further which technologies you appreciate in terms of media and which you feel are taking from the method itself? From the twitter article, we obviously get a feel you find the site pointless but you also seem to imply you appreciate blogging as a news form. What else do you think is beneficial or harmful out ther?
-What did you think about McCain’s book, “Why Courage Matters”?
Ferguson’s views toward youth seem to be that we are a generation that is catered to and targeted. Also, his views seem to see the youth as having low attention spans and needing constant updates. I feel that this Ferguson’s quote from his article on the Media Builds a Monument to Itself best describes his views, “Like most public institutions in American life, from movies to libraries to baseball parks, museums are designed with the primary goal of seizing and holding the attention of a slightly hyperactive male adolescent, that cheerful, vacant fellow who has just clambered down from the school bus and has detached himself from the ear buds of his iPod and is in danger of growing fidgety from the sudden lack of stimulation.” I actually agree with Ferguson’s analysis of the “male adolescent” because I myself have a very low attention span and enjoy institutions that give lots of stimulation. A lot of the activities described in the museum like the interactive 3-D movie sound interesting to me even if they are not completely educational.
Ferguson’s view towards media seems to be a critical one, especially towards modern journalist who act superior to other because of their profession. Ferguson writes, “Our terrific country offers lots of ways to make a living, but with the possible exceptions of movie acting and architecture, only modern journalism would have the nerve to celebrate itself with something as gaudy and improbable as the Newseum.” He also offered critic to Time magazine stating, “Time magazine, the superannuated newsweekly, seems to reinvent itself every few years with.” I found slackening energy, in one vain attempt after another to postpone its inevitable, rapidly approaching, and much-anticipated demise.” I found it interesting that a journalist like Ferguson would be so critical of typical print journalist and approach technology like Twitter. I also found it interesting for a journalist to critique the journalism profession for having this elitist type view of their profession.
Politically, I found it hard to determine what Ferguson’s views were. The only article I could see a glimmer of his political beliefs was in the Literary Obama article where he gives positives and negatives to Obama’s two books. I found his assessment of Obama’s writing fair and he didn’t seem biased. While Ferguson did seem more critical of Obama then a lot of mainstream press I did not feel like I was reading a pro-Republican author. One example of criticism used by Ferguson is this excerpt, “The real problem with The Audacity of Hope (aside from the portentous, meaningless title) is that Obama's gifts of observation and sympathy have been reduced to the realm of the political, and it's a bad fit.” While this is a critic of Obama I feel that it is unbiased and fair.
Finally, I would like to talk about what Ferguson seems to enjoy the most, Abraham Lincoln. I enjoyed the video about Abraham Lincoln and found Ferguson’s stories very interesting. He provoked me to think about how one person’s life could be analyzed in so many different ways that there are so many different versions of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is somebody different to every person as we saw with the couple that worshiped their Lincoln statue like a God. But, I feel that the message that Ferguson was trying to convey was that Lincoln’s main point was that every man is created equal and that should be the lasting message.
I enjoyed reading Ferguson’s articles and found his style of writing to keep my attention. I also enjoyed that it was hard to determine what political affiliation Ferguson was coming from even though he has worked for a Republican President and a conservative friendly paper. Finally, I found his passion for Abraham Lincoln interesting and found his stories about Lincoln to be engaging.
What was it like working as a speech writer for the President?
What do you think the main message of Abraham Lincoln was?
Do you see technology like Twitter aiding our country and politics?
The "War of the Worlds" broadcast remains enshrined in collective memory as a vivid illustration of the madness of crowds and the deeply invasive nature of broadcasting. The program seemingly proved that radio could, in the memorable words of Marshall McLuhan, turn "psyche and society into a single echo chamber." The audience's reaction clearly illustrated the perils of modernity. At the time, it cemented a growing suspicion that skillful artists — or incendiary demagogues — could use communications technology to capture the consciousness of the nation. It remains the prime example used by media critics, journalists, and professors to prove the power of the media....
That is the ultimate irony behind "The War of the Worlds." The discovery that the media are not all-powerful, that they cannot dominate our political consciousness or even our consumer behavior as much as we suppose, was an important one. It may seem like a counterintuitive discovery (especially considering its provenance), but ask yourself this: If we really know how to control people through the media, then why isn't every advertising campaign a success? Why do advertisements sometimes backfire? If persuasive technique can be scientifically devised, then why do political campaigns pursue different strategies? Why does the candidate with the most media access sometimes lose?
The answer is that humans are not automatons. We might scare easily, we might, at different times and in different places, be susceptible to persuasion, but our behavior remains structured by a complex and dynamic series of interacting factors.
Later media theory, and empirical research, would complicate and refine those earliest findings. But the basic problem of audience reception remains stubbornly resistant, and as long as the mass media exist, we'll have empirical studies with dueling conclusions concerning effects. Many people, including scholars, will continue to believe something they intuitively suspect: that the media manipulate the great mass of the nation, transforming rational individuals into emotional mobs. But notice how those who believe this never include themselves in the mob. We are, as the Columbia University sociologist W. Phillips Davison once pointed out, very susceptible to the notion that others are more persuadable than ourselves.
Would you have fallen for Welles's broadcast? If not, why do you assume so many other people did?
