Time for a muzzle
> The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it
> time to rethink free speech?
The New York Times reported that a technical demonstration of wireless communication at Bernard College in New York City. The demo turned into a political tirade as speakers used the instrument to clamor for womens' rights.
Note the date--1909, 100 years ago today.
Obviously, some things never change. But from this we can recall that arguments about free speech coupled with technology advancements are not at all new. This was a question when radio came on the scene. In the 1930s, many demogogues worldwide utilized radio for their propaganda, much of it was helpful. But at the same time, Franklin Roosevelt, with his excellent speaking voice, used radio to calm the fears of an anxious nation. FDR's precedessor, Herbert Hoover, was a terrible "spin doctor" and communicated very poorly to the public, hurting his reputation and the Depression economic recovery. (Hoover instituted some recovery programs, such as construction of the Hoover Dam, a vast public works project that employed thousands, and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which helped banks and railroads stay in business, but his contributions are forgotten and today most people mistakenly credit those programs to FDR.)
That would be Barnard College, Columbia University's women undergraduate college.
Actually, the dam project was signed into law by President Coolidge in
1928. It turned out to be a great jobs project, but no thanks to Hoover.
Hoover was a very effective administrator, particularly running European relief after WW I, but he was utterly unprepared to meet the challenges of the 1929-30 economic implosion.
ObTelephone: he lived a very long time afterwards. Here's a clip of him talking to JFK on the phone about the Cuban Missile Crisis in
The dam project was sitting still for a long time. The initial appropriation for construction was made while Hoover was president and he played an instrumental role in its construction. Hoover, as Sec. of Commerce, worked out an agreement among the several states to share the waters from the project. The FDR administration promptly changed the name of the project, but later Congress wholeheartedly switched it back to Hoover Dam.
Hoover did more to fight the Depression than he is given credit for. He does deserve credit for the Hoover Dam and making it a public works employment project. His administration created the RFC and pushed govt spending and operations to unprecedented levels to fight the Depression. He attempted to do more but the Democratic congress blocked him, wanting him to get the full blame of the Depression.
However, unlike FDR, Hoover believed that deficit spending would ultimately make things worse (a common feeling at that time) and Hoover did not support the massive social programs that FDR implemented.
As mentioned, Hoover was a terrible spin doctor. He gave the impression he was indifferent to the suffering of the poor which was not true. His speeches and press relations, consistent with the presidency until that time, did not arouse the people.
In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin". His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared about them and was working on their behalf. That was a critical contribution, giving the people hope for the future. But FDR's programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering. People forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh business slowdown.
An example of FDR's excellent radio communication skills was taking complex matters and making them straight forward for people to understand. For example, in explaining Lend-Lease, he explained that a person would gladly lend a neighbor a hose to put out a fire so that the fire didn't spread to his own house. (Interestingly, Lend Lease was neither a loan nor a lease, but a gift; it was made to sound like a loan for public consumption).
I believe Hoover made the first television transmission.
I suspect under FDR the White House internal telecommunications system greatly expanded, though I don't know the details. Washington went dial around 1930, though some congressmen didn't like it and felt they were being shortchanged by the telephone company as they were now doing the phone co's work.
Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in WWII. We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.
I don't quite agree with that, but I think we're getting beyond the scope of this newsgroup.
In terms of communications: I don't believe the New Deal contributed in any way toward improved telephone technology. I don't believe the New Deal funded any significant scientific research.
Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to rural homes?
In contrast, WW II spurred laboratories to make significant advances in technology for the war effort--paid for by the govt--which allowed faster and more intensive research and experimentation. For example, the RCA history points out the improvements in radio communications of AM and particularly FM. At Bell, during the war I think they began semiconductor research that eventually led to the transistor. Work in radar greatly helped microwave communications after the war which was a major contribution to telephone service. The explosion in traffic got Bell to develop new systems which were helpful after the war.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good questoin about Rural Electrification. Even if there was no direct subsidy, there was a large indirect one: the poles and rights-of-way were put in by the REA, so Ma Bell got to clamp on for free.
And this _has_ gotten a bit far afield, so let's dial it back, OK?
Bill Horne Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.
Telecom reference: Despite advances in technology, in 1941 long distance telecommunications, by either wire or wireless, were still very slow and cumbersome.
War comment:
The historical record is very strong that the military was very well aware of the risk of war, including Pearl Harbor. Pearl Habor got caught off guard because the Japanese outsmarted us by using a new kind of warfare--planes launched from aircraft carriers. Ironically, the Japanese hit the battleships which were actually made obsolete by their very attack. The US' carriers were out at sea and far more valuable.
While the Pearl Harbor commanders were blamed, with some justification, for not being as prepared as they should've been, MacArthur in the Phillipines was likewise unprepared (planes parked too close) and had extra time. Further, an attack on the Phillipines was expected.
Even if Pearl Harbor would've been on full readiness, the Japanese attack was still a surprise and in bad faith. The outcome of rage in the U.S. would've been the same.
If FDR was "baiting" anyone, it was the Germans. He wanted to stall the Japanese as long as possible because the US did not have the resources to fight them.
***** Moderator's Note *****
This is the last message in this thread.
Bill Horne Temporary Moderator
Please put [Telecom] at the end of your subject line, or I may never see your post! Thanks!
We have a new address for email submissions: telecomdigestmoderator atsign telecom-digest.org. This is only for those who submit posts via email: if you use a newsreader or a web interface to contribute to the digest, you don't need to change anything.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.