Thursday, January 31, 2008

A closed society

“Consider the strategic options and potential affertereffects of a regime that limits communicative capacities in the hope of minimizing internal social and political risks. In the extreme case-a closed society”-a state afraid of popular participation or subversion may try to seal itself off from the wider world, refuse to invest in literacy and education, ban independent ownership of the means of communication.”. Starr, Pg.8

In a state where communication is substantially controlled by the government, its citizens are practically brainwashed. They do not see the real world; they see the world that politicians want to demonstrate for their own interest. Only one side of the coin is exposed to a society and this can be a problem of a wider scope. The interest of a population in a place where you have no access to facts, only propaganda, leads to ignorance and to the development of an imprecise image of the world. People become the product of trash media. Whatever you here about your neighboring countries and other cultures through means of communications would be irrelevant if presented by the interest of the state exposing the information. Automatically, a population that is deprived from knowing the truth becomes a puppet driven by the mere interest of constitutive choices made by those who have dictatorial power and lack concern towards the mass.


At 10:47 PM, Blogger A. Mattson said...

You chose a great quote. This is a key issue.

Do societies have to make a choice between political security and open development? Start reading about communications policy in China if you wish to see the latest version of this conflict.

There are limits to the ability of the state to limit access to information. What happened when the governments of Europe attempted to control the press in the 17th-19th centuries? Was it possible to stop the presses?


Post a Comment

<< Home