A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From Man_with_the_muck_rake's workspace   

Americans Know more About Simpsons than Constitution

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms in the First Amendment, but more than half can name at least two family members of "The Simpsons"

Depressing, yes, shocking no. Why the hell do you think our nation got into the mess we're in if it wasn't for ignorance.

'Dumbed-down voters' now makes much more sense even if the results of their ignorance smells the same.

created by Man_with_the_muck_rake on May 06, 2008 at 09:38:45 am     Comments: 7

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Can you name all five?

The Simpsons have their own weekly and daily time slot. The First Amendment was relegated de facto dead sometime in the 18th century.

Referencing this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-01-freedom-poll_x.htm

...The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just one in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms...

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Soren Kierkegaard

posted by charlatan on May 06, 2008 at 05:25:57 pm     #



"The Simpsons" have been on TV for 18 years. I sure hope that more than half of the American population can name at least two of the characters.

One could probably learn more about the U.S. Constitution by watching The Simpsons than attending public school for 12 years.


Also from that 2006 survey:

The survey found that while 69% of people could name freedom of speech as a First Amendment right, just under 1 out of 4 people could name freedom of religion. Only 11% knew freedom of the press, 1 in 10 could name freedom of assembly and 1% named freedom to petition for redress of grievances, the survey found.


The last thing government at all levels wants is an informed citizenry. Government probably loves America's fascination with TV.

November 12, 2003 Toledo Talk thread titled TV has made nation complacent, Gore says :

The 'quasi-hypnotic influence' of television in America has fostered a complacent nation that is a danger to democracy, former Vice President Al Gore said.

Gore said democracy in America flourished at the height of the newspaper era, which "empowered the one to influence the many." That changed with the advent and subsequent popularity of television, he said, noting that the average American watches four hours of television a day.

"What does it do to us that has relevance to democracy? Does it encourage passivity? Is it connected to the obesity epidemic? ... If people are just staring at a little box four hours a day, it has a big impact on democracy," he said.


From chapter 3 in the novel Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk, the author of Fight Club :

Old George Orwell got it backward.

Big Brother isn't watching. He's singing and dancing. He's pulling rabbits out of a hat. Big Brother's busy holding your attention every moment you're awake. He's making sure you're always distracted. He's making sure you're fully absorbed. He's making sure your imagination withers. Until it's as useful as your appendix. He's making sure your attention is always filled.

And this being fed, it's worse than being watched. With the world always filling you, no one has to worry about what's in your mind. With everyone's imagination atrophied, no one will ever be a threat to the world.


Excerpts from Edward R. Murrow's 1958 speech at the Radio-Television News Directors Association convention :

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations?

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

If you don't want to read the 700-page book titled "Murrow: his life and times" then watch on your big screen TV the insightful 90-minute movie "Good night, and Good Luck."

I think Murrow would be appalled by the content contained in today's so-called TV news broadcasts. I think Murrow would want his name withdrawn from the award given in his honor to TV news broadcasts.

It's Not News, It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News

posted by jr on May 06, 2008 at 07:21:54 pm     #



It is no surprise that most Americans are ignorant of the first amendment.

Why bother to remember the words of a document that the government has declared invalid?

posted by mike2005 on May 06, 2008 at 11:21:20 pm     #



The Constitution ?!?

Wasn't that some kind of ship or boat ?

posted by WalterAnthony on May 07, 2008 at 06:13:54 am     #



Maybe a catchy pop song with all five freedoms mentioned would help... then remixed into rap song, country song, opera, kidz bop song, jock jams track etc.

Never seen the Good Night, Good Luck (I thought "Good Luck" was a tongue-in-cheek insult of sorts), but here's a clip:

This is the speech that resulted in an 29 point swing in McCarty's ratings within the course of a few months.

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210160836&sr=8-1
Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business by Neil Postman.

The British version is more amusing:

posted by charlatan on May 07, 2008 at 07:51:26 am     #



"Good Night, and Good Luck" is an excellent movie, in my opinion. It's black-and-white because the movie includes actual footage of McCarthy and other things, like TV commercials by Alcoa and Kent. The movie shows the struggle that existed for broadcast companies even in the 1950s between providing real news and entertainment.

Another movie clip. This is part of Murrow's 1958 speech that bookended the movie.

posted by jr on May 07, 2008 at 09:08:15 am     #



For some reason people think that seperation of church and state is in the constitution.

posted by Linecrosser on May 09, 2008 at 11:02:39 am     #