The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications

Starr's history of the "developmental path" of communications in the US offers a quiet but significant argument about the role of the state. He argues--on sound empirical and comparative grounds--that the major media forms in the US were shaped by distinctive political decisions made by the state. As a result, American media and media industries didn't follow the same historical path that shaped the media in European nations. But Starr is not making an argument for "American exceptionalism" in any crude or ideological sense. Yes, Starr clearly thinks the US has more successfully nurtured a robust public sphere (at least before WW II), and that its path of development has given it certain advantages in the global marketplace. But he is far from merely telling a triumphant story of American enterprise. Instead, he gives detailed historical evidence that will refute any jingoistic claim that private property interests and free market ideology are the key to US success. On the other hand, Starr argues, the very success of US media have also produced what Starr calls an "American dilemma": while democratic ideas helped create new media, those media have become vast industries with enormous power--power that has the potential to erode the very democratic practices and spaces (discussion, access, association, diversity) that brought them into existence. Starr's arguments unfold quietly and across the different chapters. This is not a bald polemic. But I would identify two key arguments that emerge (neither of which will easily comport with the right or the left): 1. Commercial activity has always been part of the public sphere of mediated discussion, expression, and political debate. There is no pure, disinterested space of political speech; from the earliest newspapers and pamphlets to highly capitalized broadcasting, the search for profit has been part of what spurred innovation, expanded public discussions, and sparked competitive contests. While this links public speech to interests and ideology, it can also allow multiple perspectives and represent the interests of less powerful groups--although the interests of capital and ruling elites do try to dominate. (Free market types will like this thread in Starr's book, while more left-leaning thinkers may not.) 2. While private and commercial interests have be part of the successful creation of media in the US, from the first it has been the state that has been the key the US competitive advantage. By supporting free speech in law, low taxation on print, broad access to education (in the North, though not in the South), infrastructure of roads, post offices, and postal rates, and by (sometimes) keeping monopolies from chocking off innovation, the state has been crucial to US success. It is a glaring mistake to assume that a hands-off government is the reason the US has succeeded so well in fostering high literacy (with damning exceptions like the exclusion of African Americans from access to educat

Paul Starr examines the development of communication in America and how it caused American democracy to develop differently from European powers. Starr lays out the argument "that the United States has followed a distinctive developmental path in communications ever since the American Revolution. The origins of that path lie in the country's founding as a liberal republic and its response to the peculiar challenges of building a nation on a continental scale." (pg. 2) Starr sees the role of communications, especially newspapers and the way the Post Office was used to subsidize the press along with the restraint in state authority as the key to place the United States on a course that sharply diverged from the patterns in Britain and the rest of Europe. Newspapers played an important part in the development of the United States. American papers focused on news with political commentary added for color while European papers focused more on literary essays. This made newspapers more popular with the masses in America. From this beginning, Starr continues to follow the development of film, radio and TV along with the recent growth in the Internet. In almost all cases, the major inventions or improvements in communications occured in the U.S. The role of a large educated middle class and the ability to communicate have for Starr resulted in our liberal form of democracy. Read this along with Michael Linds "The American Way of Strategy" to gain a new perspective of why the United States is currently involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is by far the most exhaustive reading on the creation, growth, and perpetuation of media I have ever read. At the outset, this is not a light read. Laced with history, the sociology of people within history, and trends operating in American and European culture, this is for serious students of both history and media. For that crowd, it will be a very pleasant read. I give high praise to Paul Starr for being able to outline not only the growth of media and opinion, but also putting the growth in light of America's capitalistism and industrial strength. He starts out by analyzing how European Nations like France and England tried to promote literacy through newsprint and postal services. He then outlines how those measures spilled into the United States during the Colonial Period. Of course, newspapers were only the tip of the iceberg. Starr carefully analyzes how new inventions like the telephone, telegraph, film, and radio were used heavily for capitalistic gain as well as entertainment. At first, the U.S. Supreme Court was reticent to recognize First Amendment protection to these new mediums. He also compares and contrasts Europe's tendency to nationalize many inventions instead of letting the market allow inventors to make money on their projects. Meticulously, he shows how the U.S. Navy tried to squelch Marconi's patent for wireless radio, and eventually how the Radio Act of 1927 preserved both the national and private interest. In the end, Starr seems to point out that American Capitalism was instrumental not only in creating the media, but also allowing it to diversify and eventually find the same protection as print media--and eventually find a huge diversification in points of view. Of course, all along he finds the naysayers like the Catholic League, the Hayes Code, and the Book Publishers Code that operated out of a fear of the public who did not trust these new medias. Starr is a talented writer of history and can bring the elements related to new medias with such deft and articulation. He keeps the attention, occassionaly straying from the subject, but returning before interest is lost. Moreover, he does real well in keeping his own biases and prejudices aside, simply telling history instead of trying to interpret everything as either a conservative backlash, or a liberal trick. Kudos to Starr. I look forward to his future endeavors.

It is not the media that plays games but an undercurrent of several opposing ideologies that makes the pawn move. In cases of life and death the answer is more than the difference between good and bad but rather more profound as in wrong and right(read "Brave new world" and you will understand). The family wishes and religious beliefs must be taken in account if the persons wishes are not known. Erring on the side of life is of utmost importance with the coexisting dilemma of upholding the law of the land. The media certainly ends up presenting all viewpoints with pull to the right being balanced by the pull to the left. Intrinsic beliefs and biases are ingrained in all of us and if we all try to reach over with a conscious effort to the other side (knowing our intrinsic tendencies) then negative feelings and hate are avoided and with less emotional burden on our shoulders.

International in scope, immensely detailed and authoritative, this study successfully incorporates the evolution of technology, laws, political policy and social development to put the origins of modern media into context. This historical perspective is long overdue. Since media development is actually the story of societal development, author Paul Starr does a tremendous job of detailing the roles of such diverse factors as innovation, invention, patronage, luck, law and competition, all of which shaped the media's development and helped determine its ultimate societal impact. This book is refreshingly light on political criticism, so each set of facts stands on its own. While Starr occasionally meanders from the main topic, the book's rich detail shows that he clearly enjoyed his research and writing. We consider his book essential reading for anyone interested in new and old media and how they were - and are - influenced by their societies.