When you’re in a room with a dozen other people and you all notice that the time is wrong on the clock, everyone waits for the one person to speak up. The writers of the early American press are that person. The writers are that person every single day and not just in regards to the clock, but to government, to the arts, to the community and to the world.
After the writer stands up to speak about the clock being wrong, not only does the writer become a soldier, but also the class becomes his troupe. For the teacher merely says that the time is irrelevant and in a sense censors the writer’s announcement. Now the writer is rejected but the writer has also moved up in rank and gathered an association. As Tocqueville states, “The word of a strong-minded man who alone reaches to the passions of a mute assembly has more power than the confused cries of a thousand orators.” (181)
What does this deep analogy have to do with the press, the public sphere, with American’s associations, and in general, the politics of America? Before any of which can be answered, there must be an aside made about the writing of Tocqueville. All of France needs to be filtered out of the answers. Tocqueville is bias in the sense that he often compares, relates and goes back to making statements about France that to the readers who wants to know about America needs to disregard.
Plainly stating, – and Tocqueville would agree that – the paper prevents evil things from happening more so than it creates good things to happen. Who is anyone to judge whether it should be the opposite? Who has high enough authority or experience to know or advocate for it otherwise? Both influences have a revolutionary vibe to them, but one is more suitable and relatable to the press of America. The paper had created myriad ripple effects; there was no magic bullet. Because there was no universal and direct impact of the press, such as that of a hypodermic needle to each reader, the press could not create an immediate universal change. By this, I mean that while the newspaper could present positive ideas for people to incorporate, it wasn’t effective enough. Rather, by reporting facts and talking about events, thoughts, and efforts that are already present, the press had prevented anything that is already in existence from sliding toward negative consequences. Each newspaper would create a ripple effect based on the feedback, reflections, unsettlement, and agreement of other writers, readers, and in general, the public sphere.
A highlight that is necessary to be made regarding the press and its relationship to the political sphere is that, “competition prevents any newspaper from hoping for large profits, and that discourages anybody with great business ability from bothering with such undertakings.” (185) While one can “buy off” political people, one can’t buy off what is written about them. And if so, the journalist who accepts such bribes takes the risk of being the center of destruction as much as the political candidate. This is much to worry about in the olden times due to the fact that journalists had nothing to lose; they were already undereducated, they ignored social norms, and dug for the dirt; regardless, their words taken to heart and mind. This was also a time before personal views were heavily produced in papers. People read the papers for news, for facts, and for information. There was little – very little – room for a journalist’s actual opinion. This restriction and lack of freedom for journalists is exactly what powered the political framework of society and the public sphere. The advantage that journalists had in influencing the political aspect is that the majority of those in the public sphere read the newspaper to confirm their beliefs, not to have them altered. When they would discover any doubt, they would either ignore it or search themselves for answers to overcome their doubt. (While cognitive dissonance was present, it was heavily underrepresented in early America.)
Next, it is vital that one looks at the idea of associations and the relationship they have with the press. The press made it easier to get a multitude of people to work together for a common effort. Let it be noted that the press isn’t part of an association; it is merely the organizer, the connector, and creator. Since the meet up is made public (and is open to the public), those in the public sphere know what is happening, when it will happen, and that they can participate. Through the press announcement, those in the public sphere become more livened to voice their opinions. It goes back to the simple idea that because one person knows that a multitude of people will be discussing and in cahoots on a particular subject, that person naturally wants to be in association with it. The press is not the public sphere, nor is it a filter; the press is the facilitator, mediator, or the director of associations, which constructs the public sphere.
In opposition to Tocqueville, I wouldn’t say that the press allowed complete freedom of association. There must first be an association before it can be written about or grow to a level of real public influence. Additionally, when America was first discovered and established, compared to Europe, there were not many people. The press was invented and induced into society before there became too many people who had multiple varying opinions and views. As America grew larger, everyone shared relatively the same ideas, fears, and outlooks for the future. In order to live on the west end of America, people must travel from the East over. In their travels, they would adapt to the general idea of men and the order in which they would unanimously comply with. The whole idea of being part of an association that was already created is what levels the idea that there was complete freedom of association; it was extremely difficult to create enough of a ripple effect of a completely new idea that it can be said there was no freedom to. However, while complete reformations had no ripples, variations of already present ideas did. It was in these variations that the political realm existed. While America was lathered with politics, politics were the end result of all that was mentioned above, something that Tocqueville has an issue with blatantly stating.
Stay Positive & Tocqueville Could Have Been More Direct IMO
