I've been asked to speak on the question of, "is government really changing or are we seeing it in a clearer light because of the media?"

Of course the government is changing, at least those who govern are changing. The government structure has not recently changed significantly, nor has it in the last 200 plus years. Maybe we should reverse the question and ask, "is the media changing?" For media, it would seem that it has changed more than government. From a technological standpoint, certainly the media has changed in the last decade. But in truth, as we all know, change is a constant in society and certainly in the American political arena.

Are we seeing politicians in a clearer light? I think so, but it is partly because there is more light. In 1980, there were no all-news networks. Now there are three 24-hour television news networks: CNN, MSNBC, and the Fox News Channel. There are also a host of quasi news networks: C-SPAN One, Two, and Three; CNBC; and PBS.

Then there is local news. There are more than fifteen hundred local television stations in America, with the majority producing local news. In many markets stations produce up to seven hours of local news a day. And if that's not enough, the new trend today is to start local morning news shows even earlier. Most local stations have moved their start times to 5:30 a.m., some even to 5:00 a.m. Perhaps the reason is Americans are getting up earlier and commuting longer.

All-news television and radio networks cannot fill all 24 hours with all news. It has become an accepted practice on all-news stations to analyze a story and its characters for hours. Entire news shows are centered on one story or one person - 0. J., Jon Benet Ramsey, Princess Diana, Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton. The country is fixated on the person or story of the day.

And, please don't leave out the Internet. Political debates, speeches, and rallies are now broadcast live on the Internet and there is WebTV, AOL-TV, @Home, etc.

Politics and government aren't changing as much as the world around them is changing. The technology revolution is changing America's social, cultural, economic and political history. It's not so much that government is changing. It's how government chooses to use the new technologies. No solid understanding of politics and the media can be achieved without an understanding of the other and the interactions between the two.

So, at the end of one millennium and the beginning of the other, we find ourselves ensconced in the Information Age.

We are self-aware, if nothing else.

The people living through the Dark Ages did not have the presence of mind to know it, or at least that it would be called the Dark Ages.

No citizen 700 years ago could tune in to a call-in show to learn about the nuances of the Middle Ages.

But today, in our own self-absorbed way, we know that we are fully engaged in the Information Age. We're just not sure what that means.

The all-news cycle affects government I think in four ways:

First, it galvanizes public opinion. It does this by bringing heretofore unseen events into the living rooms of Americans. This was true with the civil rights struggle in the 1960's, and it was true in the 1990's with Somalia and Bosnia. There are struggles of equal magnitude going on around the world every year. Unless or until the TV camera arrives, the American public is largely indifferent.

Secondly, the all-news cycle creates a continuing decline in civility within government. Earlier this year, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole put it this way, "...celebrity trumps accomplishment ... notoriety is the surest route to success in a 24-hour news cycle." Dole said we live in a political culture that "measures democracy in decibels." Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas said, "unfortunately, the tendency to fight rather than discuss has become a reflex for legislators. Debate suffers. Policy suffers. The people lose."

Third, the all-news cycle trivializes news and government. We have reached a point where news and entertainment are often blurred. Robert MacNeil, respected former anchor for the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour suggests we are approaching the end of news as we know it. "There is more stuff calling itself news than ever," MacNeil said.

He went on to say, "what clearly drives the news media today at a time of greatly increased competition is the desire to entertain." This is commonly called the Information Age, but it is probably appropriate to call it the Entertainment Age, because information must be marketed as entertainment. It is clear that belligerence is entertaining. Fights sell. Gentleness does not. Civil discourse is boring.

"This society is not as contentious ... as the people often represented on the media suggest ... We should not let media hunger for ratings convince us that danger, crime, horror, anger, fury, madness outweigh civility. "

Lastly, With all of these negatives, the all-news cycle has given decision-makers and the public more information than ever before. The threat to society is never too much information. In this Information Age, with so many different sources of news, we have the ability to be the best-informed citizenry in the world.

Returning then to the initial question, "is government really changing or are we seeing it in a clearer light because of the media?" The answer to both questions is yes. Government is changing and I believe for the better. Are we seeing government in a clearer light? Certainly so given the plethora of news sources, but the light is distorted through the lens of opinion, commentary, and entertainment.

Finally, I think it is clear that there is a danger in the blurring of the lines between news and entertainment. While I have a high confidence that the people of this country can make the distinction between the two, it is not always easy -- not just in television - but also in other literary efforts. The recent "biography" of President Reagan titled Dutch by Edmund Morris, a great historian, makes the point in that clearly the historical perspective is supplemented by fiction addition.

And so it is that we live in the Information Age. We will survive it. The most remarkable thing is that the complex and balanced system set in place by our Constitution as drafted by our young and brilliant founding fathers is so resilient, flexible, and adaptable; and that it is as relevant to the 21st century as it was to the ending part of the 18th Century.