Remaking Common Knowledge

I was doubly surprised when reading E. P. Thompson’s history of “unstamped” periodicals during the 1820’s: first because of the events and actors, and second because I’ve never heard this history before. It is not common knowledge (at least for me) that “the liberty of the press” had to be fought for: “Perhaps 500 people were prosecuted for the production and sale of the ‘unstamped’. From 1816 (indeed, from 1792) until 1836 the contest involved, not only the editors, booksellers, and printers, but also many hundreds of newsvendors, hawkers, and voluntary agents” (Thompson 729). I am also surprised by the progressive insight and energy of Richard Carlile, who realized that, “the repression of 1819 made the rights of the press the fulcrum of the Radical movement” (Thompson 720).

All this makes me question: why isn’t this history common knowledge? Why is this fight for freedom so far removed from common notions of a free press? I hope Thompson is being critical and ironic when he states: “In the 20^th-century rhetoric of democracy most of these men and women have been forgotten, because they were impudent, vulgar, over-earnest, or ‘fanatical’” (Thompson 732). Following this history of press wars might lead to an answer of why this “radical” fight for a free press appears rare and shocking, instead of a constant battle. At first glance it seems like these radicals who were watching the watchdog, don’t exist today.

What would currently serve as an example of the way Carlile, “sailed straight into the middle of the combined fleets of the State and Church” (720)? I think this press battle is alive and well with Frontline, Wikileaks, and groups like Anonymous. But who benefits from perpetuating a view of the press as a conventional unimposing public service, rather then a constant battleground for truth? Could popularizing a history of press liberators help to normalize instead of alienate this project of press integrity, consolidate seemingly divided radical groups, and help copy and reproduce results that were successful?

Even more than these radical press liberators of today, there needs to be an attempt to make this history common knowledge: there have been many instances where people have successfully been able to get their message out. I think a history of successes would unite and inspire those of us who feel grossly misrepresented by mass media. These formulas should be copied and mass-produced, using the very tools for marginalization in order to prevent marginalization, and open up the very closed discourse of public opinion.