Claire Bond Potter

Yet another book on America’s 21st Century political dysfunction? Don’t let that premise steer you away from Claire Bond Potter’s POLITICAL JUNKIES even if you are burned out on this particular sub-genre. It is a book well worth reading for the forgotten and unknown recent history it unearths. Best of all, it a book that strives to honestly be fair to both sides and be objective about many of its participants. The term “junkies” may be a little misleading since Potter’s book really details the efforts of activists and operatives to influence the political debate to the advantage of their side at one time or another, subverting a “mainstream media,” which consisted of newspapers, radio, and television, all of whom too often slanted their coverage of stories toward reinforcing a consensus, a status quo, or the viewpoints of the large financial interests who owned them.

POLITICAL JUNKIES details how various individuals at different points in time, staring in the 1950s, used the technology available to connect with like minded Americans to advance stories, viewpoints, and agendas given short shrift by the powers that be. They helped spur political action, set movements in motion, and challenged the course of history. In time, these outsiders would grow so numerous and powerful that they could successfully take on the big media they reviled, and seemingly make the truth itself yield to them. It starts with a subscription newsletter in the ‘50s, advances to mass mailings and public television in the ‘70s, and inevitably to news websites and social media as the country moves into the 21st Century. Along the way, we become acquainted with I.F. Stone, Paul Weyrich and Richard Viguerie, Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, Matt Drudge, and Joe Trippi; some of them staunch conservatives, others determined liberals, all of them with something to say to millions of Americans willing to listen. Lone voices become a chorus, and ultimately into a mob shouting to itself in an echo chamber, impervious to any voice but its own. The book ends in 2019 with the recounting of an incident in January of that year which happened on the Mall in Washington D.C. that was widely covered on social media, and the various liberal and conservative news outlets. Potter contrasts the warped coverage with the actual facts, and the way each side put forth diametrically opposed versions of events that reinforced each sides’ preconceived biases. It is a sobering example of how fractured and tribal America’s political discourse had become with Covid and the 2020 election only a year away.

At a little more than 300 pages, POLITCAL JUNKIES is a fairly quick read, even if I found a couple of parts to be on the dry side. It never gets bogged down for long. It is not a deep dive into the history of its times and that can lead to a seeming misreading of some events. Potter makes it appear as if Hilary Clinton’s Presidential ambitions in 2016 were undone by misinformation, and just plain hate and hostility, spread on social media by Bernie Bros and Trump Trolls while failing to place responsibility on the bad campaign run by the candidate herself. But POLITICAL JUNKIES is not a rehash of grievances, nor is it a pessimistic book. In the end, Potter shows that by recognizing the problem of political dysfunction, and learning how it got so bad, we can find a way past it. I hope she is right.… (altro)

Solid Discussion Of Sometimes Obscure History. Full disclosure up front: As a former political blogger who was an organizer of one of the Tea Party events (before the professionals got involved) and as both a Party Official (for the Libertarian Party, at both local and State levels) and Candidate (for City Council in a town encompassing an area just four square miles), I actively participated in some of the history Potter discusses here. Though quite a bit of it was before I was born - she begins her discussion in the 1950s, before even my parents were born, and I would come along during Ronald Reagan's first term as US President but not become truly politically active until November 5, 2008.

But even as someone with the aforementioned background, even as someone who once had a very high level of behind the scenes access within at least State level politics of at least one State, this truly seems like a comprehensive and accurate history of how we got to where we now find ourselves as Americans relating to politics through media. Potter has done a remarkable job of showing how various movements and moments played on and into each other, building on and around prior and contemporary techniques to go from a dude in his garage just trying to present news the Big 3 weren't to the modern era of ubiquitous cameras and Deep Fake technology. Though actual Deep Fake tech is one area Potter doesn't *truly* get into, likely as it hasn't been shown to be actually active in political circles in the US. Yet. Truly an excellent work, and anyone who is interested in why we are as fractured as we are as a populace would do well to read this to at least know how we got here from an alternative media side. If you're discussing regulation of social media or complaining about the vitriol far too many online discussions turn to, read here to find out how we got to this point - and a couple of passing ideas on how we can do a little better. Very much recommended.… (altro)

In their introduction, Renee C. Romano and Claire Bond Potter “define ‘recent history’ as histories of events that have taken place no more than forty years ago” (pg. 3). They argue that three factors encourage the scrutiny of recent history. Romano and Potter write, “First, and most prominently, historians’ lack of attention to the methodological issues related to studying contemporary history is likely to have consequences” (pg. 4). They continue, “A second reason to pay careful attention to the particular challenges of recent history stems from what we believe are increasing pressures on scholars from publishing houses to do more contemporary work and from the troubled academic job market to do more startling, interdisciplinary, or topically new work” (pg. 5). They conclude, “Finally, we believe that this volume is timely because we are living in an age of incredibly swift technological changes that have immense implications for all historians, not just those who study the recent past” (pg. 8).

In her essay, Renee C. Romano writes of the main concerns of writing recent history, “I lack access to the kinds of sources that have typically been deemed ‘most legitimate’ by the profession, especially the archival sources that are the foundation of our work…Few other historians have written about the events I research…I also have concerns about my inability to construct a historical narrative with any sense of finality, because the events I research are still ongoing and their effects are not yet clear. Finally, I wonder whether I have sufficient distance from the events that I write about – both politically and temporally – to offer meaningful interpretations of my evidence” (pg. 24). Romano argues, “Redefining mastery over our sources as being immersed enough in those sources to recognize patterns and trends can serve to challenge the epistemologically problematic claim that historians can accurately recreate the past if they just dig deeply enough” (pg. 32).

In their essay, archivists Laura Clark Brown and Nancy Kaiser argue, “Unless historians familiarize themselves with the policies and concerns of the archival collections they seek to use, they may not recognize the ways in which their access to information is being limited or understand their ethical obligations to respect the privacy rights of the individuals they discuss” (pg. 61).

In her essay, Gail Drakes writes, “Historians of the recent past are far more likely to encounter media corporations who charge exorbitant fees to those who wish to use the archive of news footage owned by the corporation. In other instances, those who study recently deceased individuals must deal with family members (and other interest individuals) who can now more easily use copyright and ‘right of publicity’ laws to maintain, protect, or polish the image of a family member posthumously. For those of us whose work focuses on the recent past, issues of privacy, pride, and profit can loom large among the challenges we face in our work” (pg. 85). She continues, “The Copyright Term Extension Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act played no small part in expanding the relevance of copyright law and informed the decisions of those who sought to assert more aggressively their intellectual property rights at the start of the twenty-first century” (pg. 89). Drakes concludes, “The work of the historian is to explore and celebrate the past and to shape the surviving traces – information that has now been reimagined as intellectual property – into historical narratives. There are few groups with as much at stake, and as much to gain, in the fight to protect the past from the encroachment of intellectual property law as those of use who have committed our professional lives to its study” (pg. 106).

In her essay, Claire Bond Potter writes, “Oral histories present particular methodological challenges in this regard, particularly to those who are merely dipping into the practice as one of several methods of gaining access to a recent past: oral histories are not simply testimony or evidence but conversations and performances…Oral histories also cannot be treated as raw, uninterrupted data. Interviews are shaped initially by their subjects and shaped again at the stage of the transcript in a ‘second-level narrative.’ They then become subject to scholarly interpretation that, in effect, reshapes an oral history for a third time” (pg. 159).

In his essay, David Greenberg argues, “Although manifestly flawed as a primary means of keeping abreast of current affairs, television footage is still a unique and important primary source for historians, and we have hardly begun to exploit it” (pg. 189). Greenberg points out the lack of archival data, as many broadcasts are copyrighted or only available as transcripts. While he mentions the Vanderbilt archive, Greenberg writes, “Though of great potential value, the Vanderbilt archive has notable shortcomings. For one thing, it only recently began taping cable news – a delay that has left large omissions in its coverage of the 1980s and 1990s” (pg. 195). Discussing other issues he writes, “Television also challenges historians in another important way: unlike print, it can’t easily be skimmed” (pg. 197). Greenberg concludes, “The final reason that historians overlook television as source material may simply be habit. None of the profession’s institutional structures – from the formulation of job descriptions to the design of conferences to the awarding of prizes – place much value on the use of television as a source” (pg. 197).

In his essay, Jeremy K. Saucier writes, “Video games and video game storytelling…cast a wide cultural net, combining and relying on old and new popular forms, narratives, technologies, and techniques. As such, they are hybrids of literary and visual culture, blurring the line between play or entertainment and work or training” (pg. 204). He cautions, “Ignoring the presence of video games in recent America is akin to writing the history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries without noting the significance of the dime novel or writing the history of postwar America without acknowledging the importance of television” (pg. 204). Saucier concludes, “Video games are potentially the most powerful storytelling medium of the twenty-first century. Not only are simulated experiences becoming more commonplace, but they are being woven into the fabric of American social, economic, and political institutions. Political battles have been and will continue to be waged over the psychological and cultural costs of video games, at the same time they are used to recruit and train a new generation of soldiers” (pg. 218).… (altro)