If at First You Don't Succeed, Just Don't Talk about It

Starr discusses the importance that the development of communications played in the transformation of American society from colony to nation. Towards the end of chapter three, Starr praises the advancements made as a direct result of the "American Revolution in Communications" that include the establishment of free speech, the Constitution itself, government-subsidized newspapers, an elaborate postal network, protection of postal privacy, a census, and an extended education system. As I read through chapters two and three, I noticed that Starr failed to discuss something that I feel would be necessary when talking about the relationship between the media and the American Revolution: The Articles of Confederation.

Despite discussing events leading up to, during, and following the ratification of the Articles, Starr mentions the document only once in passing: "Under the Articles of Confederation in 1785, the postmaster general had insisted that the Post Office had no obligation to carry newspapers, and after adoption of the Constitution it was unclear what policy the new government would take" (89). It seems that this statement alone calls for a discussion all its own since it had an effect on the development of the media in the early republic. Additionally, Starr does not state whether the Articles explicitly denied the ability for the Post Office to carry newspapers, or if it was the desire of the postmaster general.

An intellectual of Paul Starr's status failing to discuss the original governing document in detail (especially in context with a discussion of the Constitution) is negligent. Perhaps negligent might seem like too harsh a word, but I think it fits in this instance. Starr implies that the conception of government the early leaders of the United States came up with was superior, because Americans were naturally superior beings (thanks Tom). I am the first to venerate to achievements of our nation's founders (and what remarkable achievements they were!); however, I feel that with all the good that Starr praises, perhaps some more missteps should be discussed. If we are naturally superior, then why didn't those founders find a system of government that worked on the first try?

It seems that the Articles would play a prominent role in the creation of media in the early republic, at the very least because of the dissemination of ideas as a result of its ratification. The fact that the postmaster general attempted to suppress the flow of ideas by not carrying newspapers could be important; furthermore, Starr's omission reflects the impossibility of disseminating unbiased views on historical events. With that said, I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of Starr's work, especially since I have only read the first three chapters of the book. I for one would find the discussion much more interesting, but I like to complicate things sometimes.