Blaming the Media for Political Decisions

[Pangloss]

As most of you probably know, I am NOT a huge fan of the mainstream media. I think they've earned their status amongst the dregs of society's disrespected professions, alongside used car salesmen and divorce attorneys. But I don't think it's right to blame them for the political choices that a country makes. And I think that tendency derives from several very flawed and detrimental notions:

 

1) That people are stupid, and tend to do what they're told.

 

2) That there is always a correct position, and that the job of the media is to get on the right side of the issue.

 

3) That the press is qualified to determine the truth in all cases. (e.g. "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't figure out who leaked Valerie Plame?")

 

And the thing is, it's a lesson we seem incapable of learning. Fresh off the pasting it got over WMDs and Iraq, the press is now being attacked by the right for allowing the election of Barack Obama! Check out this awful video, in which Joe Scarborough screams about how we "just don't know!!!!!" about Obama and Blagoyavich (sorry, I am NOT going to learn how to spell that man's name). Then a reporter for the NY Times points out that the information is all under lock and key, and that the story IS being reported on -- actively. So the idiot just goes on to say "well we know nothing about Blago, Emmanuel..." (names half a dozen Obama appointees). OMFG!

 

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=ydpr8zQukU

 

Now yeah, Scarborough is a conservative and outraged rants are his stock in trade. What I'm saying is that this point of view, this practice of beating up on the media for "not investigating" is actually just doublespeak and cover for really saying "you're an idiot for not agreeing with me". And it's FRIGHTENINGLY common. Conservative forums are slathered in posts these days about how the American public is about to discover buyer's remorse and creating the most conjectural conspiracy theories imaginable about Obama. Why not? When do we ever tell people that this is BAD for the country? Don't we in fact, constantly, 24 hours a day on three different networks, do the exact OPPOSITE? (And all hail Jon Stewart for championing the fight against THAT demon!)

 

In conclusion let me just add that over the next couple months we're going to hear from LEGIONS of left-wingers who are going to parade about saying "I told you so" about Bush and "it's too bad the media didn't bother to report it". They're wrong to say that (the latter part anyway; they can feign prescience if the wish), and they're hurting us all by doing so. And I say we put a stop to it right now, before history repeats itself yet again.

[iNow]

What I'm saying is that this point of view, this practice of beating up on the media for "not investigating" is actually just doublespeak and cover for really saying "you're an idiot for not agreeing with me". And it's FRIGHTENINGLY common. Conservative forums are slathered in posts these days about how the American public is about to discover buyer's remorse and creating the most conjectural conspiracy theories imaginable about Obama. Why not? When do we ever tell people that this is BAD for the country?

Well, there will be some "buyers remorse," in that many people did seem to have artificially high expectations of Obama. In that sense, some people will be let down when he simply can't do it all. Me, I find that he was definitely the BEST choice, and that he is certainly going to do better than those who opposed him would have (it's all relative essentially).

 

However, to the thrust of your point, we tell these ideological scumbags how wrong they are, and how much they're hurting the country all of the time. But, you know what? Logic is wasted on their position, as they construe all disagreements as coming from people who "hate america first" or are "liberals" or whatever other derogatory label they can conceive.

 

They don't listen to reason, they attack it, and it reinforces the bubbles of their worldview.*

 

How do to deal with this, I'm not sure. All I can suggest is that we keep winning over the minds of people with logic and reason, and hopefully soon such idiotic approaches like those of Scarbourgh are marginalized into the realm of the inconsequential.

 

 

* Like this (the example in the first minute and a half): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213369&title=halloates-pay-tribute-to-alan

[Mokele]

While I do agree that we cannot simply blame the media for all our political ills, I do think they have indeed had a role in the dismal state of affairs. They have the ability to ask truly insightful questions, to take politicians to task, but instead they lowball, they pander, they take explicitly biased positions (::coughcough::Fox::cough:, and generally sell out in order to profit. The media have basically failed at their job, and the result is that the most respected journalist in the world is on Comedy Central.

 

Honestly, everything that needs to be said on the subject was said on

.

[waitforufo]

I still fondly remember when we called it the news. Sometimes a half hour of local and a full hour of national news seemed like too much. The real news was delivered to your front porch every morning. Since that document, unlike the internet, was finite in length, you actually had to read articles that conflicted with your personal point of view if you wanted to keep reading until you finished your fruit loops, toast, and coffee. Reading those stories gave you a broader perspective.

 

Today we have the media. It's on the tube 24/7 on several channels. Don't like Fox, turn to MSNBC. I really don't think most people appreciate that the goal of 24/7 media is keep you glued to the set and provide you only enough courage to venture out on occasion to purchase the soap they are boosting. Whenever I watch the media I try to keep score on what is news and what is opinion. My conclusion is little news and lots of opinion.

 

With regard to the internet, it's just too easy to avoid opinions contrary to your own. The volume of information that supports your own point of view is just too huge. If you don't go out of your way to look for contrary opinions you get tunnel vision rather quickly.

 

With regard to Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, I find their programs entertaining but I think some rely on them too much. Jon Stewart freely admits his program is fake news and Steven Colbert boasts of his programs truthiness. Sarcasm has its place in providing perspective but too much isn't a good thing either.

 

Stewart and Colbert at times remind me of programs that "expose the evils" of the pornography and sex trade businesses. Those programs always get good ratings, but aren’t they just cashing in on the pornography and sex trade business trade as well?

[bascule]

Cable news is awful, and unfortunately what semblance of dignity it has left has been systematically erased by News Corporation