What do you think?
Rate this book
The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion
A thought-provoking history of communications that challenges ideas about freedom of speech and democracy.
At the heart of democracy lies a contradiction that cannot be resolved, one that has affected free societies since their Though freedom of speech and media has always been a necessary condition of democracy, that very freedom is also its greatest threat. When new forms of communication arrive, they often bolster the practices of democratic politics. But the more accessible the media of a society, the more susceptible that society is to demagoguery, distraction, and spectacle. Tracing the history of media disruption and the various responses to it over time, Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing reveal how these changes have challenged democracy—often with unsettling effects.
The Paradox of Democracy captures the deep connection between communication and political culture, from the ancient art of rhetoric and the revolutionary role of newspapers to liberal broadcast media and the toxic misinformation of the digital public sphere. With clear-eyed analysis, Gershberg and Illing show that our contemporary debates over media, populism, and cancel culture are not too different from the democratic cultural experiences of the past. As we grapple with a fast-changing, hyper-digital world, they prove democracy is always perched precipitously on a razor’s edge, now as ever before.
At the heart of democracy lies a contradiction that cannot be resolved, one that has affected free societies since their Though freedom of speech and media has always been a necessary condition of democracy, that very freedom is also its greatest threat. When new forms of communication arrive, they often bolster the practices of democratic politics. But the more accessible the media of a society, the more susceptible that society is to demagoguery, distraction, and spectacle. Tracing the history of media disruption and the various responses to it over time, Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing reveal how these changes have challenged democracy—often with unsettling effects.
The Paradox of Democracy captures the deep connection between communication and political culture, from the ancient art of rhetoric and the revolutionary role of newspapers to liberal broadcast media and the toxic misinformation of the digital public sphere. With clear-eyed analysis, Gershberg and Illing show that our contemporary debates over media, populism, and cancel culture are not too different from the democratic cultural experiences of the past. As we grapple with a fast-changing, hyper-digital world, they prove democracy is always perched precipitously on a razor’s edge, now as ever before.
329 pages, Hardcover
Published June 16, 2022
62 people are currently reading
1031 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 5, 2022
In this history of the spoken & written word in the development of democracy, the authors state their goal is “to try to clarify what democracy actually is and how, specifically, it works.” This reader thinks the authors succeeded in their goal in an overwhelmly thorough manner. Sometimes, though, they hammer away at their point too much. They challenge readers to view democracy as more than its laws and institutions. For many readers, this may be a paradigm shift in how democracy is viewed. Every point the authors make about the role of rhetoric and media in a democracy is backed up with plenty of examples, starting with the Athenians.
Looking through the lens of persuasion, the authors give a thought-provoking survey of different periods in American history, such as the American Revolution and the Civil War. Since the authors contend that a democracy can go in different directions, they present contrasting examples. For instance, the American Revolution is contrasted with the French Revolution.
One of their points is change in the world of communication is happening faster than our institutions can handle. These changes can cause disorder, and the book is an excellent reminder that the turmoil we’re currently experiencing is not new, just different. With examples from the U.S. and other nations, such as Venezuela, Peru, Hungary, Russia, the authors show how democracy can be gamed through media.
I was interested in reading this book because of an interview with the authors I heard on NPR. What follows here are snippets from this book that I marked. By sharing these, you may also be persuaded by the authors’ words to read this book:
“ . . . it’s better to think of democracy less as a government type and more as an open communicative culture. Democracies can be liberal or illiberal, populists or consensus based, but this are potential outcomes that emerge from this culture.”
“ . . . the paradox of democracy: a free and open communication environment that, because of its openness, invites exploitation and subversion from within. . . . To put it another way, the essential democratic freedom—the freedom of expression—is both ingrained in and potentially harmful to democracy.”
“Democracy has no defined purpose, and it is shaped in real time by the communicative choices of individual citizens and politicians. But it offers no guarantees of good governance or just outcomes.”
Current writing on the state of democracy today present an idea that the present state of affairs is unique to this moment in time; that “the default state of democracy is stability, and periods of disruption are the exception. But the reverse is much nearer the truth.” . . . “Democracy—in theory and practice—is always unstable.”
“If we reduce democracy to a bundle of institutions or a set of rules, like regular elections or universal suffrage or the legal protection of civil rights, we miss what is most essential to democratic order: an open culture of persuasion. To say that a state is democratic is to say little about how it is actually governed.”
“The rise of polarizing cable televise news, the blogosphere, and the outrageous flows of social networking, now hooked to our palmed smartphones, let citizens in on the act of forging discourses and choosing what news they prefer.”
“If a democracy consists of citizens deciding, collectively, what ought to be done, then the manner through which they persuade one another determines nearly everything else that follows.”
“Digital technology has changed everything. Consequently, reality is up for grabs in a way it never has been before.”
“Democratic politics aren’t a battle of ideas so much as a competition of communication where style can always be substance, no matter how often we complain or pretend otherwise. . . . Hence the paradox: the more open the communication we enjoy, the more endangered democracy finds itself.”
The anthropologist Robin Dunbar came to the conclusion that “social cohesion, egalitarianism, and stability among humans is possible only for groups of no more that 150 people.”
“Free speech does not guarantee truth or virtue: it simply allows for the confrontation of persuasive communication.” . . . “Democracy, from the Athenians to today, has never promised good government. It has only promised—it can only promise—a freedom of deliberation among citizens and their representatives with rhetoric as the key tool with which to exercise such freedom.” . . . “It does not automatically translate into wise counsel or fair treatment.”
“The open communication of democracy reveals difference, not unanimity.”
“ . . . fascism can only emerge from, and within, democracy itself.” Use the media & institutions of democracy to attain power, then close it off with totalitarianism. . . . "Fascism relies on intransigence.”
Propaganda: 1st, win people’s support for subsequent organizations; 2nd, the organization wins people over to the continuation of propaganda; 3rd, propaganda disrupts the existing state of affairs so it can be replaced. Disinformation and misinformation has been part of politics from the beginning. Trusted sources had been gatekeepers to help expose this propaganda or give the public, but now “social media enables citizens to create and share propaganda among themselves at warp speed.” . . “Everyone could become a gatekeeper now, yet citizens (are) under no obligation to conform to corporate priorities or professional ethics.
“With television people must show, not tell, the audience who they are and what they are about. It requires performance, not honesty.”
Lewis Powell, in 1971, the year Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which has been used by conservatives to oppose liberalism through a network of partisan media organizations, PR professionals, and think tanks. “The Powell Memo remains one of the most ingenious and influential plans for political communications ever drafted in American history, and it was executed to near perfection” in decades since 1971.
“ . . . every new media technology is a double-edged sword, increasing opportunities for free expression but also providing a means of exploitation.”
“Television disrupted democracy with a bias toward imagery and branded narratives.”
“ . . . it is neither terribly unusual nor undemocratic to issue discriminatory laws and rationalize them through traditional political means of rallies and television.” (The authors use Narendra Modi’s rise to power in India as an example of this.)
In Hungry, Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party have structured an illiberal democracy. “ . . . the rhetoric that had once been used to initiate a transition to democracy is now used to complete a constitutional coup d’etat against an established democracy.”
“ . . . fake new isn’t powerful because it’s false; it works by inundating an already over leveraged media environment to the point where nothing truly can be believed.”
“It’s because of the openness of democratic society that everything is permitted. To assume, as so many have, that democracy tilts inexorably toward liberalism was always to misunderstand its defining feature.”
“To justify itself, democracy need only do two things: provide space for free expression and the opportunity to check power.”
“The centrifugal forces that undermine democratic legitimacy—concentrations of wealth, racism, and so on—will always seek to consolidate their grip on power, through lobbying or propaganda or subterfuge.”
“A democracy permits every available means of persuasion, and people determine for themselves what facts they consider accurate and what cause they consider just.”
“Public opinion is perpetually vulnerable to hysteria and mass manipulation—from opportunistic politicians, from attention merchants, from corporate media. And now it’s subject to its own self-induced misinformation.”
From the research done by political scientists, “ . . the most knowledgeable voters, the ones who pay the most attention to politics, are also the ones most prone to biased or blinkered decision-making. And the reason is simple: most people make political decisions on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not an honest examination of reality. So more knowledge is more likely to increase, not reduce partisanship.”
“The very nature of democracy implies that there can be no deliberative or rationalistic consensus—and we should cease striving for one.”
“ . . . we’ve witnessed the gradual destruction of unions, of organized party machines, even churches and other institutions that have traditionally served as buttresses of democratic activism. The great value of these institutions was that they connected voters to a larger political movement and helped structure political attitudes in coherent ways. As these elements have collapsed, political culture has simultaneously splintered and hollowed out. Without meaningful opportunities for civic action, people have instead turned to more toxic forms of collective identification, and these problems seem increasingly intractable as the population grows more polarized and fragmented.”
“” . . . the freedom and openness of democracy run on a kind o honor system. The grounds for ethical communication are never secured and are always being contested. And the overall health of a democratic culture is nothing but the sum total or choices made by the people who make it up.”
“Democracy is always free speech and its consequences.”
“What people believe is true is more important than what is actually true because what people do in the world is a function of what they believe about the world.”
“Ultimately, democracy is only a clearing space. Ideas and arguments and rhetorical style clash through various media. Good governance and good faith are not guaranteed in advance. Truth rarely prevails. The best or most logical arguments do not always triumph. There’s no telos or direction. Whoever persuades, by whatever means, wins. . . . “
Looking through the lens of persuasion, the authors give a thought-provoking survey of different periods in American history, such as the American Revolution and the Civil War. Since the authors contend that a democracy can go in different directions, they present contrasting examples. For instance, the American Revolution is contrasted with the French Revolution.
One of their points is change in the world of communication is happening faster than our institutions can handle. These changes can cause disorder, and the book is an excellent reminder that the turmoil we’re currently experiencing is not new, just different. With examples from the U.S. and other nations, such as Venezuela, Peru, Hungary, Russia, the authors show how democracy can be gamed through media.
I was interested in reading this book because of an interview with the authors I heard on NPR. What follows here are snippets from this book that I marked. By sharing these, you may also be persuaded by the authors’ words to read this book:
“ . . . it’s better to think of democracy less as a government type and more as an open communicative culture. Democracies can be liberal or illiberal, populists or consensus based, but this are potential outcomes that emerge from this culture.”
“ . . . the paradox of democracy: a free and open communication environment that, because of its openness, invites exploitation and subversion from within. . . . To put it another way, the essential democratic freedom—the freedom of expression—is both ingrained in and potentially harmful to democracy.”
“Democracy has no defined purpose, and it is shaped in real time by the communicative choices of individual citizens and politicians. But it offers no guarantees of good governance or just outcomes.”
Current writing on the state of democracy today present an idea that the present state of affairs is unique to this moment in time; that “the default state of democracy is stability, and periods of disruption are the exception. But the reverse is much nearer the truth.” . . . “Democracy—in theory and practice—is always unstable.”
“If we reduce democracy to a bundle of institutions or a set of rules, like regular elections or universal suffrage or the legal protection of civil rights, we miss what is most essential to democratic order: an open culture of persuasion. To say that a state is democratic is to say little about how it is actually governed.”
“The rise of polarizing cable televise news, the blogosphere, and the outrageous flows of social networking, now hooked to our palmed smartphones, let citizens in on the act of forging discourses and choosing what news they prefer.”
“If a democracy consists of citizens deciding, collectively, what ought to be done, then the manner through which they persuade one another determines nearly everything else that follows.”
“Digital technology has changed everything. Consequently, reality is up for grabs in a way it never has been before.”
“Democratic politics aren’t a battle of ideas so much as a competition of communication where style can always be substance, no matter how often we complain or pretend otherwise. . . . Hence the paradox: the more open the communication we enjoy, the more endangered democracy finds itself.”
The anthropologist Robin Dunbar came to the conclusion that “social cohesion, egalitarianism, and stability among humans is possible only for groups of no more that 150 people.”
“Free speech does not guarantee truth or virtue: it simply allows for the confrontation of persuasive communication.” . . . “Democracy, from the Athenians to today, has never promised good government. It has only promised—it can only promise—a freedom of deliberation among citizens and their representatives with rhetoric as the key tool with which to exercise such freedom.” . . . “It does not automatically translate into wise counsel or fair treatment.”
“The open communication of democracy reveals difference, not unanimity.”
“ . . . fascism can only emerge from, and within, democracy itself.” Use the media & institutions of democracy to attain power, then close it off with totalitarianism. . . . "Fascism relies on intransigence.”
Propaganda: 1st, win people’s support for subsequent organizations; 2nd, the organization wins people over to the continuation of propaganda; 3rd, propaganda disrupts the existing state of affairs so it can be replaced. Disinformation and misinformation has been part of politics from the beginning. Trusted sources had been gatekeepers to help expose this propaganda or give the public, but now “social media enables citizens to create and share propaganda among themselves at warp speed.” . . “Everyone could become a gatekeeper now, yet citizens (are) under no obligation to conform to corporate priorities or professional ethics.
“With television people must show, not tell, the audience who they are and what they are about. It requires performance, not honesty.”
Lewis Powell, in 1971, the year Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which has been used by conservatives to oppose liberalism through a network of partisan media organizations, PR professionals, and think tanks. “The Powell Memo remains one of the most ingenious and influential plans for political communications ever drafted in American history, and it was executed to near perfection” in decades since 1971.
“ . . . every new media technology is a double-edged sword, increasing opportunities for free expression but also providing a means of exploitation.”
“Television disrupted democracy with a bias toward imagery and branded narratives.”
“ . . . it is neither terribly unusual nor undemocratic to issue discriminatory laws and rationalize them through traditional political means of rallies and television.” (The authors use Narendra Modi’s rise to power in India as an example of this.)
In Hungry, Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party have structured an illiberal democracy. “ . . . the rhetoric that had once been used to initiate a transition to democracy is now used to complete a constitutional coup d’etat against an established democracy.”
“ . . . fake new isn’t powerful because it’s false; it works by inundating an already over leveraged media environment to the point where nothing truly can be believed.”
“It’s because of the openness of democratic society that everything is permitted. To assume, as so many have, that democracy tilts inexorably toward liberalism was always to misunderstand its defining feature.”
“To justify itself, democracy need only do two things: provide space for free expression and the opportunity to check power.”
“The centrifugal forces that undermine democratic legitimacy—concentrations of wealth, racism, and so on—will always seek to consolidate their grip on power, through lobbying or propaganda or subterfuge.”
“A democracy permits every available means of persuasion, and people determine for themselves what facts they consider accurate and what cause they consider just.”
“Public opinion is perpetually vulnerable to hysteria and mass manipulation—from opportunistic politicians, from attention merchants, from corporate media. And now it’s subject to its own self-induced misinformation.”
From the research done by political scientists, “ . . the most knowledgeable voters, the ones who pay the most attention to politics, are also the ones most prone to biased or blinkered decision-making. And the reason is simple: most people make political decisions on the basis of social identities and partisan loyalties, not an honest examination of reality. So more knowledge is more likely to increase, not reduce partisanship.”
“The very nature of democracy implies that there can be no deliberative or rationalistic consensus—and we should cease striving for one.”
“ . . . we’ve witnessed the gradual destruction of unions, of organized party machines, even churches and other institutions that have traditionally served as buttresses of democratic activism. The great value of these institutions was that they connected voters to a larger political movement and helped structure political attitudes in coherent ways. As these elements have collapsed, political culture has simultaneously splintered and hollowed out. Without meaningful opportunities for civic action, people have instead turned to more toxic forms of collective identification, and these problems seem increasingly intractable as the population grows more polarized and fragmented.”
“” . . . the freedom and openness of democracy run on a kind o honor system. The grounds for ethical communication are never secured and are always being contested. And the overall health of a democratic culture is nothing but the sum total or choices made by the people who make it up.”
“Democracy is always free speech and its consequences.”
“What people believe is true is more important than what is actually true because what people do in the world is a function of what they believe about the world.”
“Ultimately, democracy is only a clearing space. Ideas and arguments and rhetorical style clash through various media. Good governance and good faith are not guaranteed in advance. Truth rarely prevails. The best or most logical arguments do not always triumph. There’s no telos or direction. Whoever persuades, by whatever means, wins. . . . “
July 22, 2022
A good book on a hugely important topic. Unfortunately, I think the book got bogged down in several places. It would likely be better as a shorter, tighter book. But I'm glad I read it as it put many things in perspective and gave me many thoughts to contemplate further.
November 1, 2022
One of the best books I’ve read in a while
February 26, 2025
Full review and summary.
Democracy feels more fragile than ever, and The Paradox of Democracy helped me understand why.
It argues that democracy isn’t just about voting or governance. It’s about how we communicate. The book explores how modern media, especially social platforms, have reshaped public discourse, sometimes empowering people but often distorting the very system meant to serve them.
Democracy is never guaranteed. It’s something we have to work for, protect, and constantly rethink. A thought-provoking read that made me question how we engage with political life today.
Democracy feels more fragile than ever, and The Paradox of Democracy helped me understand why.
It argues that democracy isn’t just about voting or governance. It’s about how we communicate. The book explores how modern media, especially social platforms, have reshaped public discourse, sometimes empowering people but often distorting the very system meant to serve them.
Democracy is never guaranteed. It’s something we have to work for, protect, and constantly rethink. A thought-provoking read that made me question how we engage with political life today.
February 21, 2023
I am a white male Baby Boomer who never thought too much about Democracy and especially about Democracy in America - I take (took) it for granted - there was and always would be Democracy in America.
Recent events, politics, Jan 6th, 2021 - reading about younger generations' perceptions about the importance/attractiveness of Democracy and Capitalism versus Socialism are troubling to me.
This book details what Democracy is (or might be) - the ability to express ourselves and to hold the Government so as to account (and to change the Government by peaceful means if and as necessary).
The book covers how Democracy has fared during the print media - rise of newspapers; the Television media (John Kennedy - first TV President) - and after Jan 6th - the Social Media age (TV Cable continued to cover Jan 6th - but Social Media Companies 'closed' Donald Trumps Social Media Accounts. This action shows the Social Media Companies' increasing relevance and power.
Democracy according to the authors - contains the seeds of its own demise - it values free speech and the expression of free ideas - within the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately as of late - ideas have been replaced by truthful or untruthful persuasion. Mass media persuades people with or without truth by the use of skillful narratives. One result is that we have a fractured country (and media landscape) - where people choose what network/news narrative they wish to hear - that which corroborates their existing worldview and increasingly demonizes other existing worldviews.
Book is light on 'fixes' - other than education related to Digital Self-Defense - teaching this and Critical Thinking which is a start, but insufficient.
Democracy in America is not a given. The authors speculate that it was theoretically possible on Jan 6th 2021 for Trump to declare a National Emergency - and with these powers (crudely) 'close down the internet' and invoke Martial Law. Indeed some his advisors had suggested this strategy. What would such a strategy have done to 'the opposition'? Authors document that (a variant of) this is what was done in Mynmar (sp), India and China.
Biggest takeaway - the need to be vigilant and engaged in support of Democracy even in America.
Biggest disappointment- that this book needed to have been written. The Baby Boomers were going to 'solve the problems of the world'...On their watch Democracy has been and in endangered in America and around thworld.
Book should be of interest to those who read political science.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
Recent events, politics, Jan 6th, 2021 - reading about younger generations' perceptions about the importance/attractiveness of Democracy and Capitalism versus Socialism are troubling to me.
This book details what Democracy is (or might be) - the ability to express ourselves and to hold the Government so as to account (and to change the Government by peaceful means if and as necessary).
The book covers how Democracy has fared during the print media - rise of newspapers; the Television media (John Kennedy - first TV President) - and after Jan 6th - the Social Media age (TV Cable continued to cover Jan 6th - but Social Media Companies 'closed' Donald Trumps Social Media Accounts. This action shows the Social Media Companies' increasing relevance and power.
Democracy according to the authors - contains the seeds of its own demise - it values free speech and the expression of free ideas - within the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately as of late - ideas have been replaced by truthful or untruthful persuasion. Mass media persuades people with or without truth by the use of skillful narratives. One result is that we have a fractured country (and media landscape) - where people choose what network/news narrative they wish to hear - that which corroborates their existing worldview and increasingly demonizes other existing worldviews.
Book is light on 'fixes' - other than education related to Digital Self-Defense - teaching this and Critical Thinking which is a start, but insufficient.
Democracy in America is not a given. The authors speculate that it was theoretically possible on Jan 6th 2021 for Trump to declare a National Emergency - and with these powers (crudely) 'close down the internet' and invoke Martial Law. Indeed some his advisors had suggested this strategy. What would such a strategy have done to 'the opposition'? Authors document that (a variant of) this is what was done in Mynmar (sp), India and China.
Biggest takeaway - the need to be vigilant and engaged in support of Democracy even in America.
Biggest disappointment- that this book needed to have been written. The Baby Boomers were going to 'solve the problems of the world'...On their watch Democracy has been and in endangered in America and around thworld.
Book should be of interest to those who read political science.
Carl Gallozzi
Cgallozzi@comcast.net
October 14, 2022
After finishing, I enjoyed the central premise of the book as something I'd focused on in grad school: the different things we internalize when we discuss democracy and how frequently a normative definition is assumed when the procedural form is the only thing a constitution guarantees. These writers hone in on that distinction, its implications going forward, and tie it to media technology over the last 2,500 years. From rhetorical sophistry to yellow journalism to today's cloistered media environments, both 'traditional' and social, Gershberg and Illing attempt to demonstrate that the popular understanding and practice of democracy are intimately tied to media, which changes over time as technology advances. That said, the historical narrative that makes up the bulk of this book is a little under-theorized and seems selected on the dependent variable with little attempt made to falsify their premises. I was particularly heartened by their insightful discussion of cancel culture as simply allowing more people to speak and speak back to elites who are used to gatekeepers insulating them from criticism.
Additionally, over the first few chapters, these writers are obnoxiously showy in their style. A strong need to quote anything tangentially related to their thoughts to show off the breadth of their reading mixes with a desire to show off just how well they can use a thesaurus to create something that detracts from an insightful argument. Their editors should have restrained them. The beginning of the book can be incredibly off-putting; it's reminiscent of every person you ever had in class who asked questions and immediately looked smugly around to see if what his classmates thought of how intelligent a question he asked, no matter how irrelevant.
Additionally, over the first few chapters, these writers are obnoxiously showy in their style. A strong need to quote anything tangentially related to their thoughts to show off the breadth of their reading mixes with a desire to show off just how well they can use a thesaurus to create something that detracts from an insightful argument. Their editors should have restrained them. The beginning of the book can be incredibly off-putting; it's reminiscent of every person you ever had in class who asked questions and immediately looked smugly around to see if what his classmates thought of how intelligent a question he asked, no matter how irrelevant.
September 3, 2022
An excellent read that offers much-needed lessons in the recent history of democracies around the world through a media and communications lens. Suffers a bit from repetition, very occasional deviations into a flat out bad pop sci writing (one of the writers works for Vox.com and their site’s punchy attention-getting style is easy to detect), and a tendency to obscure its theoretical background that came across as somewhat disingenuous (it took digging around in the notes to discover a cite of an academic book on democratic theory called…The Democratic Paradox…that seems to make very similar arguments as this work). It also repeatedly denies or downplays the role of institutional structures in favor of culture, which is novel but not quite as convincing as the authors might think.
3 Stars (Good) for good, detailed in-depth historical research. Adding 1 star for novelty of the work at a critical time, valuable call to action, genuinely intellectually engaging material, and self-effacing avoidance of cliché solutionism. Recommend.
3 Stars (Good) for good, detailed in-depth historical research. Adding 1 star for novelty of the work at a critical time, valuable call to action, genuinely intellectually engaging material, and self-effacing avoidance of cliché solutionism. Recommend.
October 19, 2022
This took me a long time to read for some reason - it’s actually quite good albeit a little dense in places. There’s a lot of history of communications here - from the Greek Agora to the Internet but the essential point that Gersberg and Illing are making is that democracy is messy but it’s the best system we have and we need to work at it. The alternatives are far worse. If we accept that democracy is the better form of governance then we need to put up with the polarisation, the fake news, the noisy and intemperate debate. Unusually for these kind of books - it does offer some solutions although these are curious - more local newspapers ? Civic education? All worthy interventions but hardly revolutionary.
September 29, 2022
This is an intelligent analysis of how democracy and freedom of expression constitute a paradox. You can’t have one without the other, but they grate on each other and are always perilously close to falling apart. The acceleration of media and technology have both helped and harmed democracy, but ultimately we can’t use the bullshit and lies and crimes committed using a free media as an excuse to restrict speech or censor things that we don’t like us or makes us feel uncomfortable. Surrendering that freedom to corporations, content moderators, algorithms or the government will be the end of democracy.
September 1, 2022
This is super interesting. They are describing how technology affects communication and media and how that effects democracy and politics.
What’s cool is how they summarize that effect and various instances throughout the centuries. It could have been a little shorter but overall I found it very engrossing and informative.
What’s cool is how they summarize that effect and various instances throughout the centuries. It could have been a little shorter but overall I found it very engrossing and informative.
March 13, 2023
A challenging and difficult read, but worth the effort. If you are looking for reassurance about the “future” of democracy, or instructions on how to return to some mythical time when democracy was easier, this is not the book for you. But if you are ready for an unsentimental analysis, I recommend this book.
December 4, 2022
I couldn't get much further than the first quarter. It seemed like the author was saying the same thing over and over in slightly different ways. It's too bad because I think the point being made is a good one.
September 16, 2022
not being dramatic this is the best book i’ve read
September 18, 2022
This book could’ve been a blog post
July 1, 2024
Well written but for a very very high level
January 3, 2023
For fascism can only thrive in an open society with a free press, which is another way of stating that it can only take root in democracy. This is the dilemma, and we can't get away from it.
Democracies are historical constructs, just like everything else. They are never truly secured or attained, but rather maintained and controlled. We assumed that the stability of liberal democracy was permanent because we had lived under it for so long. We assumed that disruptions were the exception rather than the rule.
We assumed that liberal democracy was democracy in its purest form, that the system was founded on unchangeable rules and values. But none of these assumptions were correct.
We assumed that liberal democracy was democracy in its purest form, built on unchangeable principles and values. However, none of these assumptions proved to be right.
We can see, like a toddler discovering that the world isn't quite ready-made, that democracy is in flux and that the so-called pathologies of democracy—demagoguery and populism—are features, not bugs.
As a result, it is vital to avoid reducing democracy to a set of institutions or procedures, such as cyclical elections or peaceful power transitions. Democracy is an open region that is constantly caught between creating and unwinding processes. And the communication technologies of any democracy shape its culture: how individuals get information, how that information is transmitted, and how persuasion occurs.
Democracies are historical constructs, just like everything else. They are never truly secured or attained, but rather maintained and controlled. We assumed that the stability of liberal democracy was permanent because we had lived under it for so long. We assumed that disruptions were the exception rather than the rule.
We assumed that liberal democracy was democracy in its purest form, that the system was founded on unchangeable rules and values. But none of these assumptions were correct.
We assumed that liberal democracy was democracy in its purest form, built on unchangeable principles and values. However, none of these assumptions proved to be right.
We can see, like a toddler discovering that the world isn't quite ready-made, that democracy is in flux and that the so-called pathologies of democracy—demagoguery and populism—are features, not bugs.
As a result, it is vital to avoid reducing democracy to a set of institutions or procedures, such as cyclical elections or peaceful power transitions. Democracy is an open region that is constantly caught between creating and unwinding processes. And the communication technologies of any democracy shape its culture: how individuals get information, how that information is transmitted, and how persuasion occurs.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews