The Effect of Bias on the Printing Press

Apology for Printers provides a glimpse into what a hub of information Ben Franklin became during the enlightenment. He uses a humorous tone to dispel the many misconceptions his readers have about how he operates his newspaper, something he jokes warrants an annual reminder as authors and readers alike are quick to displace feelings onto the middleman, the printer. Besides explaining the inherent nature of opposing opinions in the printing business, Franklin touches on Kant’s idea of public vs. private. Any other trade at the time involves a separation between the two that allows for transactions between “people of all persuasions.” The printer does not have that luxury however because his business is the business of opinions, providing the nexus of the enlightenment: public discourse.

We know Franklin retains his ability to express private opinions through the use of pseudonyms, but what about the freedom to print anything in his paper? As Franklin writes in another article, “it is a bad thing to have a bad name” because it taints a reader’s perception for all subsequent publications. For example, many Americans today shy away from Fox News because they believe it publishes with a wildly conservative slant that makes stories seem entirely different than if they were broadcast on their preferred network, such as CNN. Franklin maintains that he employs a “vast unconcernedness as to the right or wrong opinions” that he publishes because if printers took a stance, it would put an end to free writing. On the other hand however, he continues: “printers do continually discourage the printing of great numbers of bad things, and stifle them in the birth.” As usual, (and fittingly for a printer), Franklin does not take a firm stance on the issue, but presents both sides and still leads his reader to conclusions. A certain conclusion here is that the extent to which the printer filters his paper and the reader narrows his sources of information limits or expands the enlightenment process for the individual, because a narrow window of information blocks out a lot of debate.

But that the public should enlighten itself is more possible…

In his 1784 effort on Enlightenment, Kant proclaims its creed as Sapere aude!, or "Have courage to use your own reason!" This phrase, it seems, functions as more than just a motto or badge of the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenment functions as more than just a period of learning in human history. Sapere aude! is a challenge set forth by Kant and his cohorts. This call to action, to reason, is a brave and powerful one, especially for the time. But how have we as humans, with 227 years since Kant ascribed it to the Enlightenment, heeded and understood Sapere aude! - have we fulfilled his challenge?

Kant urges an internal enlightenment, or what he describes as "man's release from his self-incurred tutelage;" the method he offers to break these shackles is reason. In addition to providing the tool to reach enlightenment, he provides two avenues: the public and private enlightenments. He charges that the enlightened man should employ reason in both these realms. Kant says that for one man to break his bonds of tutelage is difficult work as this way of life has "become almost his nature." This idea struck me as strange. Is it then unnatural to become enlightened? At first, that idea seems even stranger, but as I think about it more, it seems logical - or at least reasonable. Kant says more about the public, that "[they] can only slowly attain enlightenment." This naturally begs the question: have we attained it? If so, do we exist in an unnatural world - one of the enlightened?

Kant says, "If we are asked, 'Do we now live in an enlightened age?' the answer is, 'No,' but we do live in an age of enlightenment," suggesting the ongoing process of the whole thing. Surely, the Age of Enlightenment (if that's what we've began) has caused good for the human race. Medicine, religion, manufacturing, quality of life, and other human conditions and processes are all in arguably better standing than before. Kant has risin to defeat the unenlightened idea that "I need not think, if I can only pay--others will readily take the irksome work for me." This is the age of action!

London Riots - Enlightened?

Centuries after the enlightenment, one would imagine the words or ideals would seem realized, if not exceeded. As I read the Kant, I was struck by a passage, which implied freethinking would lead to the realization of these ideals.

“…the propensity and vocation to free thinking – this gradually works back upon the character of the people, who thereby gradually become capable of managing freedom; finally, it affects the principles of government, which finds it to its advantage to treat men, who now more than machines, in accordance with their dignity” (Kant 7).

I was instantly reminded of a series of photographs I saw in the wake of the London riots, which occurred for over a week in early August. I found the images intensely disturbing and difficult to comprehend. Below is a selection of these images, which depict citizens throwing items at the police, burning buildings, and destroying property at random.

How easily the present population will digress into a state of barbarism against not only police in seats of authority, but also their fellow men and their businesses is horrifying. If you have not read about the riots, they were caused by a racially charged incident in which the police killed a man. Yes, his death was a travesty, but the destruction of one's own city serves no purpose in protesting his death. When I think of London, I imagine a hub of culture and intellect, a city who is home to royalty as well as a capital of fashion. If a city so developed can digress so quickly to extended acts of violence, how can we expect anyone to be civilized? D'Alembert discusses at length a similar notion "Moral philosophers are fond of asking how men lived in what is called a state of pure nature, before there were organized societies and laws, and whether such a state was one of peace or war." (D'Alembert 15). However, he believes such a question is pointless, instead he explores how "men of letters" have behaved, concluding that in society "no one has the right to live to the complete detriment of his fellows" (D'Alembert 15). In the introduction we read, they indicated that Enlightenment ideals lost clout after the atrocities of two world wars and the Holocaust. I wonder, in our present society, if we have progressed towards these ideals of Enlightenment, or digressed. Can these ideals hold merit in our society? Or are we simply slipping further into darkness?

Click here to the see the complete series of photographs:

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots.html

Click here to read a New York Times article about the riot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all