Serious question about American media/public

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

I know I'm new on this board--so I figured this would be a good post for both sides to talk about. So before I get started, I'll admit I'm more right wing than left, so here goes.

 

This board has already discussed the Hitchens article about Moore (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/orourke.htm). In a somewhat similar tone and article, P.J. O'Rourke blasts the right and the left's talk shows and huge media figures like Moore, Coulter, etc.(http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/07/orourke.htm)

 

Now for the heart of my topic--why is it that the poltical blowhards, the ones who pander to the lowest common denominator, etc. etc. are the ones who are popular? Take Michael Moore, I don't dislike him because he's liberal, I dislike him because his books suck. I enjoy reading liberal ideas, I enjoy all political debate, but I'd prefer reading about the left from a New Yorker, then one of Moore's "Cutesy humor, look at me I'm so smart, wink wink" political fluff pieces that requires you to think about as much as pop up book does. Moore's basically only out there because he's the loudest, most bombastic of his kind. To be fair to both sides, I'll say Coulter and Rush are similar. The question is why? Why does our public flock to the lowest form of political entertainment?

 

Is it that more intellectual books and movies go above the heads of the public, is it that people just want to be entertained so they open up Stupid White Men or flip on Rush (the man not the band)? Is it that people don't care enough about politics to delve deeply in it, and like their political info given to them like a Happy Meal? Also, another bad thing about Moore and Rush, etc. etc. is how freaking polarized they get us. I've heard people on both sides flat out say that a moderate Republican or Democrat is evil, needs to die, etc. In Barnes and Noble the other day I heard some girl loudly proclaim "I HOPE IF BUSH GETS ELECTED AMERICA GETS BOMBED BECAUSE WE DESERVE IT!" I thought, what the hell? Why are we so polarized now. I know it's an election year, but in the past this hate between both sides didn't seem so great, and the ironic thing is that often times the polticians and pundits get along great once the show ends! Hell, look at Carville and Matalin!!! People really are disagreeing on how they think the country should be ran, and making too large an issue out of it.

 

For example, I'm a Republican, but do I hate Edwards? No. I think he's a great guy, he's succseful, has dealt with alot in his life, and seems like an honest, moral, good man. Because I might disagree with him about an economic issue isn't a reason to hate him. I've got a great friend who's left wing, I know he's left wing--he knows I'm right wing, and him and I can talk for hours about the issues and such without once making the other person mad. Hell, we laugh more than we disagree. Well--I don't want to start to just ramble, but that's my little political thought, that sometimes it's better to leave the "ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME SHOULD DIE!!!!!!!!!!" thoughts out of it.

 

To end, lately the people who piss me off aren't Democrats or Republicans, it's the people on both sides who know jack shit about anything and open their mouths like their a professor, like when someone who has never taken an Econ class in their life starts spouting nosense about how our Economy is doing so bad, etc. etc.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Fuck Democrats.

 

Oh, and "hi" and stuff...

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Because the shmucks have charisma, and for some reason us Americans love charisma.

 

Hell Charisma Carpenter would be on our flag if Jesus was a roofer....

 

EDIT: Yes, that was a seperation of church and state joke.

[Dangerous A 0]

Welcome to American politics. Where the guy with the loudest voice and biggest schlong i.e. most money get the last say so, whether or not they have a valid argument.

 

 

To add to that comment from the Barnes and Noble bitch. I've seen this kind of fanatasism and it frightens me as well. A friend of mine overheard a guy telling his girlfriend walking out of F 9/11 that watching the movie made him want to join al Queda. WTF kind of reaction was that. I can see the movie opening up some people's eyes or reaffirming some people's thoughts, but to make a comment like that is outrageous. Even Moore's intention of his movie wasn't that.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Welcome to American politics. Where the guy with the loudest voice and biggest schlong i.e. most money get the last say so, whether or not they have a valid argument.

I'm sure America isn't the only place that acts like this.

 

But to answer you question, I listen to talk radio mostly to be entertained. Hell, all eight (plus 1-2 of my commute) hours of my workday are usually filled with people like Glenn Beck, Rush, Neal Bortz and Sean Hannity (plus some sports people, too). I don't listen to them just so I can write down what they say and then repeat it at this place. I just listen to get a laugh or two (or three).

 

I think the "danger" is when people listen to someone and just takes their word on it. Since you're new you probably haven't read the few posts I have made about my better half who just started listening to talk radio and she comes home some days bitching about what she heard on the radio at work. I then have to play devil's advocate on her, which scares the HELL out of me sometimes.

 

And many of the "intellectual" books are, imo, no better than a Mikey Moore or Anne Coulter -- they just use fancy words.

 

Oh, and moderate Republicans need to die...

[tommytomlin 0]

Based on my deep research into American politics (watching Fox News and reading this site mainly), and comparing it with my own country, there's so much more anger in American politics. I don't know when it started, don't know why it started, but the anger leads to less of an emphasis on a person's politics and a bigger emphasis on their character, which reduces political discourse to fatheads like Moore, Hannity and Rush performing blatant character assassination instead of arguing for or against specific policies.

 

For example, the leader of the Opposition Party in my country, Mark Latham, was recently the victim of witchhunt by certain segments of the media in regards to his divorce and a rumoured physical altercation twenty years ago. I have no doubt that if this was America, this would have been the media's focus for a few months. But in Australia, character politics is pretty much unheard of, so the news was on the front page for three days and then disappeared when Latham announced some policy. I don't think you'd see that in America.

 

Platinumboy's point about not hating Edwards because he has a different economic policy is a good one too. If Edwards was a Republican, would the Tories on this board be in outrage that he was a trial lawyer? If Jack Ryan was a Democrat, would they have been professing their absolute disgust at his actions? And vica versa, if Dick Cheney just happened to be on the other side of politics, would the liberals here care so much about him dropping the F-Bomb?

 

So in closing, American politics would be a whole lot better if you focused less on what John Kerry did to his ribbons/medals and more on what his economic policy was.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

This isn't just exclusive to politics. Many Americans are very stupid. How else can you explain that J-Lo is a huge star and that the average joe considers Derek Jeter the best shortstop in baseball?

[Guest MikeSC]

Now for the heart of my topic--why is it that the poltical blowhards, the ones who pander to the lowest common denominator, etc. etc. are the ones who are popular?  Take Michael Moore, I don't dislike him because he's liberal, I dislike him because his books suck.  I enjoy reading liberal ideas, I enjoy all political debate, but I'd prefer reading about the left from a New Yorker, then one of Moore's "Cutesy humor, look at me I'm so smart, wink wink" political fluff pieces that requires you to think about as much as pop up book does.  Moore's basically only out there because he's the loudest, most bombastic of his kind.  To be fair to both sides, I'll say Coulter and Rush are similar.  The question is why?  Why does our public flock to the lowest form of political entertainment? 

Because, and this is the sad truth, the lowest common denominator is far more entertaining. Why do guys like Franken and Moore wow the left so much? Because liberals in think tanks, who actually know what they're talking about, are more than mildly bland.

 

Ditto the conservatives. Rush, Hannity, et al are more entertaining than somebody from, say, the Heritage Institute.

 

Also, and this is another problem, the media is lazy. INSANELY so. They'd rather have somebody spoon feed them EVERYTHING (something "upper class" conservative/liberals won't do) rather than have to do a little work. Thus, they know which people will basically do their work for them.

Is it that more intellectual books and movies go above the heads of the public, is it that people just want to be entertained so they open up Stupid White Men or flip on Rush (the man not the band)?  Is it that people don't care enough about politics to delve deeply in it, and like their political info given to them like a Happy Meal?  Also, another bad thing about Moore and Rush, etc. etc. is how freaking polarized they get us.  I've heard people on both sides flat out say that a moderate Republican or Democrat is evil, needs to die, etc.  In Barnes and Noble the other day I heard some girl loudly proclaim "I HOPE IF BUSH GETS ELECTED AMERICA GETS BOMBED BECAUSE WE DESERVE IT!"  I thought, what the hell?  Why are we so polarized now.  I know it's an election year, but in the past this hate between both sides didn't seem so great, and the ironic thing is that often times the polticians and pundits get along great once the show ends!  Hell, look at Carville and Matalin!!!  People really are disagreeing on how they think the country should be ran, and making too large an issue out of it.

I'll tell you why we're so polarized --- we're more educated. Education increases partisanship most of the time. And, the voices that the people hear the most are definitely NOT going to talk to them about keeping to the higher ground because far more money is made for them by people going down into the gutter.

For example, I'm a Republican, but do I hate Edwards?  No.  I think he's a great guy, he's succseful, has dealt with alot in his life, and seems like an honest, moral, good man.  Because I might disagree with him about an economic issue isn't a reason to hate him.

I don't hate the man, either --- don't even hate Kerry --- I just think that both men are way too beholden to certain groups (*coughtriallawyerscough*) who tend to cause more damage than good.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I wish you'd do some research on Edwards, Mike. He's seemed to change a lot, psychologically, emotionally, since the trial lawyer days.

 

This is like me saying that President Bush is a huge party animal because he got a ticket many years ago.

[Guest MikeSC]

I wish you'd do some research on Edwards, Mike. He's seemed to change a lot, psychologically, emotionally, since the trial lawyer days.

 

This is like me saying that President Bush is a huge party animal because he got a ticket many years ago.

If Bush had gotten tickets just a few years ago --- as in less than 10 --- you'd have a comparable point.

 

I don't see Edwards trying to fix any of the problems in the tort system whatsoever.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'll tell you why we're so polarized --- we're more educated. Education increases partisanship most of the time. And, the voices that the people hear the most are definitely NOT going to talk to them about keeping to the higher ground because far more money is made for them by people going down into the gutter.

 

I disagree. The first 100 years of American politics were just as or more polarized than the next 100, even though the public wasn't nearly as educated. You also notice that many of the biggest loudmouth extremists are either the homeless hippies (for the left) and redneck hicks (for the right). Neither are what I would call the most educated demos in America. I think it has to do with the fact that fanatics develop a cult following the way moderates never can, and this support is extremely vocal. The media also tries to push this as hard as they can because controversy=ratings.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'll tell you why we're so polarized --- we're more educated. Education increases partisanship most of the time. And, the voices that the people hear the most are definitely NOT going to talk to them about keeping to the higher ground because far more money is made for them by people going down into the gutter.

 

I disagree. The first 100 years of American politics were just as or more polarized than the next 100, even though the public wasn't nearly as educated. You also notice that many of the biggest loudmouth extremists are either the homeless hippies (for the left) and southern rednecks (for the south). Neither are what I would call the most educated demos in America. I think it has to do with the fact that fanatics develop a cult following the way moderates never can, and this support is extremely vocal. The media also tries to push this as hard as they can because controversy=ratings.

Kahran, I'll also argue that the "homeless hippies" tend to be highly educated (just total ninnies) while the rednecks ALSO tend to be far more educated than people realize (they're just bumpkins).

 

Why was it "more civil" in the 50's? Because people weren't as bright in the 50's.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It was more civil because the generation just got through the Great Depression and World War II and realized how much worse things could be.

 

In the 1850s it was worse than now.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah things haven't hit the all-time low until we start accusing everyone of heither having fathered a mixed-race child out of wedlock, or being a mixed-race child born out of wedlock.

[Guest Cerebus]

Bush is poloarizing.

 

There I said it.

 

Too many people either get fanatical defending him or fanatical attacking him. And who shouts the loudest tends to get heard the most.

 

Oh and the media. If there is ever a problem, its always the media.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Bush is poloarizing.

 

There I said it.

[Guest GreatOne]

.....and that the average joe considers Derek Jeter the best shortstop in baseball?

I actually do, hey memories of watching A-Rod go into the tank in the second half and nearly cost the M's the playoffs in 2000 will do that to you.

[CanadianChris 0]

Now for the heart of my topic--why is it that the poltical blowhards, the ones who pander to the lowest common denominator, etc. etc. are the ones who are popular? Take Michael Moore, I don't dislike him because he's liberal, I dislike him because his books suck. I enjoy reading liberal ideas, I enjoy all political debate, but I'd prefer reading about the left from a New Yorker, then one of Moore's "Cutesy humor, look at me I'm so smart, wink wink" political fluff pieces that requires you to think about as much as pop up book does.

You've just answered your own question. People hate to have to, you know, THINK.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

.....and that the average joe considers Derek Jeter the best shortstop in baseball?

I actually do, hey memories of watching A-Rod go into the tank in the second half and nearly cost the M's the playoffs in 2000 will do that to you.

What about Miguel Tejada or Edgar Renteria or Nomar Garciaparra or Michael Young? There are several shortstops better than Jeter.

[Guest GreatOne]

.....and that the average joe considers Derek Jeter the best shortstop in baseball?

I actually do, hey memories of watching A-Rod go into the tank in the second half and nearly cost the M's the playoffs in 2000 will do that to you.

What about Miguel Tejada or Edgar Renteria or Nomar Garciaparra or Michael Young? There are several shortstops better than Jeter.

Defensively maybe Tejada and Young have a slight nod over Jeter, but I don't know that I'd want them up in the 9th over Jeter with 2 on and 2 out down by 1.

 

Can we at least agree that RICH AURILIA isn't a better SS than Jeter?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I agree on that.