[ek]

Does it seem like cultural commentary has also improved in the last 50 years? I am young enough to not remember what it may have been like when Asimov wrote originally, but it strikes me that Vice is a relatively contemporary sort of a thing.

I would be interested in similar pieces from 50 years ago, looking back on 1914's view of 1964. So much has changed since then, though, and it seems like more has changed since 1964 than changed from 1914 to 1964. In particular, the 60s happened, but even after that, the Internet seems to have effected a fairly massive and seemingly permanent cultural shift. It might be too early to tell, but even the fact that someone posted this commentary, we all read it instantly, and then now we're discussing it here only hours later seems worlds away from the climate of 1964.

[coldtea]

>Does it seem like cultural commentary has also improved in the last 50 years? I am young enough to not remember what it may have been like when Asimov wrote originally, but it strikes me that Vice is a relatively contemporary sort of a thing.

Cultural commentary? If anything, it declined a lot. Once you had people like Normal Mailer, Tom Wolf and Hunter Thompson doing cultural commentary, and many more besides.

Now it's mostly puff pieces, and 90% of it is about who said what on some bs tv show (and twerking).

[nsp]

90% of it was then as well, we just don't reread or remember those. You don't think that there are five cultural critics(whatever that includes) on par with Thompson or mailer? There might be more noise, but there's a lot more signal as well.

[coldtea]

>* You don't think that there are five cultural critics(whatever that includes) on par with Thompson or Mailer?*

No, I really don't. Not to mention others -- heck, Hemingway himself was a reporter and cultural commentator too.