{"id":696,"date":"2006-06-22T16:50:59","date_gmt":"2006-06-22T16:50:59","guid":{"rendered":"\/ifbookblog\/?p=696"},"modified":"2006-06-22T16:50:59","modified_gmt":"2006-06-22T16:50:59","slug":"meanwhile_back_in_the_world_of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/2006\/06\/22\/meanwhile_back_in_the_world_of\/","title":{"rendered":"meanwhile, back in the world of old media . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One of the most interesting things about new media is the light that it shines on how old media works and doesn&#8217;t work, a phenomenon that Marshall McLuhan encapsulated precisely with his declaration that a fish doesn&#8217;t realize that it lives in water until it finds itself stranded on land. The latest demonstration: an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2006\/06\/21\/books\/21conserve.html\">article<\/a> on the front page of yesterday&#8217;s <i>New York Times<\/i>. (The <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iht.com\/articles\/2006\/06\/21\/news\/right.php\">version<\/a> in the <i>International Herald Tribune<\/i> might be more rot-resistant, though it lacks illustrations.) The <i>Times<\/i> details, with no small amount of snark, how the conservatives have taken it upon themselves to construct an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.isi.org\/books\/bookdetail.aspx?id=d5df2f81-f030-4b92-a945-77f33929f9f1\"><i>Encyclopedia of American Conservatism<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>We&#8217;ve spent a disproportionate amount of time discussing encyclopedias on this blog. What&#8217;s interesting to me about this one is how resolutely old-fashioned it is: it&#8217;s print-based through and through. The editors have decided who&#8217;s in and who&#8217;s out, as the <i>Times<\/i> points out in this useful chart:<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" alt=\"who is in and who is out of the conservative encyclopedia\" src=\"\/blog\/archives\/preterite.png\" width=\"435\" height=\"314\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Readers are not allowed to argue with the selections: American Conservatism is what the editors say it is. It&#8217;s a closed text and not up for discussion. Readers can discuss it, of course&nbsp;&ndash; that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m doing here&nbsp;&ndash; but such discussions have no direct impact on the text itself.<\/p>\n<p>There&#8217;s a political moral to be teased out here&nbsp;&ndash; conservative thinking is dogmatic rather than dialectical&nbsp;&ndash; but that&#8217;s too easy. I&#8217;m more interested in how we think about this. Would we notice the authoritarian nature of this work if we didn&#8217;t have things like the Wikipedia to compare it to? Someone who knows more about book history than I can confirm whether Diderot &#038; d&#8217;Alembert had to deal with readers disgruntled by omissions from their <i>Encyclop&eacute;die<\/i>. It&#8217;s only now, however, that we sense the loss of potential: compared to the Wikipedia this seems limiting. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One of the most interesting things about new media is the light that it shines on how old media works and doesn&#8217;t work, a phenomenon that Marshall McLuhan encapsulated precisely with his declaration that a fish doesn&#8217;t realize that it lives in water until it finds itself stranded on land. The latest demonstration: an article [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[114,591,1288,1345,1348,2016],"tags":[2400],"class_list":["post-696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-authority","category-encyclopedias","category-newmedia","category-oldmedia","category-omission","category-wikipedia","tag-encyclopedias-newmedia-oldmedia-authority-omission-wikipedia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/futureofthebook.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}