This article is kind of all over the place. I certainly get the sentiment but I feel like it could have been written in a more conscise manner. I think the criticisms of media pursuit of profit...
This article is kind of all over the place. I certainly get the sentiment but I feel like it could have been written in a more conscise manner.
I think the criticisms of media pursuit of profit and clicks has certainly exacerbated the problem of shitty politicians, but I'm not sure if you can single-handedly point to that as "How we got here". It's obviously more complicated.
In my idiot internet opinion it's systemic - defunding education, reducing economic mobility, political spectacle, the complete devistation of the working class all arguably play a bigger role in how we got here as opposed to "Media consolidation leads to shitty news and bad politicians". I know, I know that's an over simplification of the article but I think my point still stands.
But I guess, what is the point of this article? To try and tell us something? I mean people who know, already know, people who don't probably won't ever know. I think it might have been better to suggest solutions to our current problems.
Yes the article is not extremely focused, but the summary is "the media is at fault", and I think that is more significant than "the population is uneducated". I want to focus on a specific...
Yes the article is not extremely focused, but the summary is "the media is at fault", and I think that is more significant than "the population is uneducated". I want to focus on a specific phenomenon which was caused by irresponsible media: How did Trump get elected?
The apprentice show presented him as a competent businessman. The show was typical reality TV, which means it was 90% fake. Somehow it gave him an air of respectability even though everyone had decades of previous evidence that he was always an absolute buffoon.
CNN and other "moderate" networks showed him continuously during the campaign. He was never a serious candidate worthy of such coverage, but he generated ratings. He got millions (billions?) of dollars of free promotion just by being a train wreck.
Conservative media did their normal thing of shielding their viewers and readers from reality. There is no way for consumers of conservative media to find out what is really happening in government or in campaigns. And once Trump humiliated the other Republican candidates he became the beneficiary of their propaganda.
All this coverage means everything because humans are easily manipulated and mistake familiarity for quality. This is why advertisements work. It's similar to the question of "How did a mediocre product such as Bud Light become a top seller in the 80s?". It's because it had the largest advertising budget.
The constant exposure to Trump made it ok for people in the "heartland" to consider Trump, even though he is absolutely the opposite of anyone they supposedly respect.
He's a coastal elite, rich person who wears makeup who whines about trivialities. He's the opposite of a rugged individual and the opposite of the American Standard of someone who takes responsibility for his actions. I know some people will say "they like him because they are hateful like him", but they would have never even heard of him if he got media coverage that was proportional to his appropriateness to lead a country.
All of these things are definitely factors, perhaps the major factors, but I can't help but point out that Trump did not win the popular vote count. He won on electoral votes. There's only 4 times...
All of these things are definitely factors, perhaps the major factors, but I can't help but point out that Trump did not win the popular vote count. He won on electoral votes. There's only 4 times in US history since the two parties became the established parties that it's happened that way, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. To me, it's a story that can't be told without mentioning the voting system and apparatus around it, because there's so many flaws in it and I believe it helps contribute to the polarization. It also goes specifically towards the question "How did Trump get elected". Some argue it goes towards the question of Bush's election in 2000, with Nader getting the votes he got, which only a broken voting system makes it so a 3rd party can negatively impact the outcome like that. You could certainly fall back to any number of reasons or arguments with regards to Trump getting the amount of votes he got, regardless of the broken voting system, and that obviously exposes an issue beyond the voting system that such a person would garner the support he gets, but I think a better voting system would probably have allowed a more appropriate candidate to win. Also don't lose sight of the fact that this did not start with Trump. Consider that Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, totally changed the stakes for the presidency by doing something rather unprecedented with the Supreme Court nomination. What allowed that situation to happen or unfold the way it did?
Also I don't really agree with this perspective of "the media did it" when the media is playing to the viewers. There's no doubt that the media consolidation and the owners of the media should make some wary, but you said it yourself, he generated ratings. People like watching drama, especially in situations where drama wasn't expected. Arguably, the media isn't supposed to determine who is most appropriate to lead the country and then dictate their screen time based on that. Why would the media have this standard in this one respect, and not have this standard anywhere else? Most of the other things they do is based on ratings (unless of course they're part of Sinclair Broadcasting...). We should be asking why people want to watch the car crash so much that they lose sight of where they are going themselves.
One thing that the Trump era has taught me is that a significant portion of our government functioned because most people were willing to play by the unspoken rules (aka "norms"). How we expected...
Also don't lose sight of the fact that this did not start with Trump. Consider that Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, totally changed the stakes for the presidency by doing something rather unprecedented with the Supreme Court nomination. What allowed that situation to happen or unfold the way it did?
One thing that the Trump era has taught me is that a significant portion of our government functioned because most people were willing to play by the unspoken rules (aka "norms"). How we expected our government to function was mostly due to people not abusing certain things, or if they did eventually even their own side would cut them off.
McConnell took that to the extreme with the Supreme Court seat, and it worked. So now they will push it further.
But I think it really started with the Tea Party movement. They showed that their particular brand of nationalism was palatable with a large enough number of voters, so they went with it. House Freedom Caucus comes directly from there.
If you follow this kind of meta-analysis of our news organizations and their intersection with public policy, education, history, etc. there's not a lot new in this article. That said, it's a...
If you follow this kind of meta-analysis of our news organizations and their intersection with public policy, education, history, etc. there's not a lot new in this article.
That said, it's a topic that I personally find interesting and worthy of keeping in mind.
Also, it has the typical amount of Salon.com hyperbole. Reader be warned :)
Ever since the "genius" marketers and campaigners realized how division, prejudice, and tribalism could be weaponized not only for political gain but massive monetary gain as well, the US has been...
Ever since the "genius" marketers and campaigners realized how division, prejudice, and tribalism could be weaponized not only for political gain but massive monetary gain as well, the US has been on a downward spiral to implosion. Then again, maybe those problems had always been present and were just hiding beneath the surface.
I think that the media has played a role in the dumbification of American politics, but I think it is only one piece. I just finished a book called "Jesus and John Wayne" that details the rise of...
I think that the media has played a role in the dumbification of American politics, but I think it is only one piece. I just finished a book called "Jesus and John Wayne" that details the rise of evangelicalism in American politics and it made a compelling argument that Christians becoming weaponized as a political tool is one of the main reasons for the current state of politics, I highly recommend it.
This article is kind of all over the place. I certainly get the sentiment but I feel like it could have been written in a more conscise manner.
I think the criticisms of media pursuit of profit and clicks has certainly exacerbated the problem of shitty politicians, but I'm not sure if you can single-handedly point to that as "How we got here". It's obviously more complicated.
In my idiot internet opinion it's systemic - defunding education, reducing economic mobility, political spectacle, the complete devistation of the working class all arguably play a bigger role in how we got here as opposed to "Media consolidation leads to shitty news and bad politicians". I know, I know that's an over simplification of the article but I think my point still stands.
But I guess, what is the point of this article? To try and tell us something? I mean people who know, already know, people who don't probably won't ever know. I think it might have been better to suggest solutions to our current problems.
Yes the article is not extremely focused, but the summary is "the media is at fault", and I think that is more significant than "the population is uneducated". I want to focus on a specific phenomenon which was caused by irresponsible media: How did Trump get elected?
All this coverage means everything because humans are easily manipulated and mistake familiarity for quality. This is why advertisements work. It's similar to the question of "How did a mediocre product such as Bud Light become a top seller in the 80s?". It's because it had the largest advertising budget.
The constant exposure to Trump made it ok for people in the "heartland" to consider Trump, even though he is absolutely the opposite of anyone they supposedly respect.
He's a coastal elite, rich person who wears makeup who whines about trivialities. He's the opposite of a rugged individual and the opposite of the American Standard of someone who takes responsibility for his actions. I know some people will say "they like him because they are hateful like him", but they would have never even heard of him if he got media coverage that was proportional to his appropriateness to lead a country.
All of these things are definitely factors, perhaps the major factors, but I can't help but point out that Trump did not win the popular vote count. He won on electoral votes. There's only 4 times in US history since the two parties became the established parties that it's happened that way, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. To me, it's a story that can't be told without mentioning the voting system and apparatus around it, because there's so many flaws in it and I believe it helps contribute to the polarization. It also goes specifically towards the question "How did Trump get elected". Some argue it goes towards the question of Bush's election in 2000, with Nader getting the votes he got, which only a broken voting system makes it so a 3rd party can negatively impact the outcome like that. You could certainly fall back to any number of reasons or arguments with regards to Trump getting the amount of votes he got, regardless of the broken voting system, and that obviously exposes an issue beyond the voting system that such a person would garner the support he gets, but I think a better voting system would probably have allowed a more appropriate candidate to win. Also don't lose sight of the fact that this did not start with Trump. Consider that Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, totally changed the stakes for the presidency by doing something rather unprecedented with the Supreme Court nomination. What allowed that situation to happen or unfold the way it did?
Also I don't really agree with this perspective of "the media did it" when the media is playing to the viewers. There's no doubt that the media consolidation and the owners of the media should make some wary, but you said it yourself, he generated ratings. People like watching drama, especially in situations where drama wasn't expected. Arguably, the media isn't supposed to determine who is most appropriate to lead the country and then dictate their screen time based on that. Why would the media have this standard in this one respect, and not have this standard anywhere else? Most of the other things they do is based on ratings (unless of course they're part of Sinclair Broadcasting...). We should be asking why people want to watch the car crash so much that they lose sight of where they are going themselves.
One thing that the Trump era has taught me is that a significant portion of our government functioned because most people were willing to play by the unspoken rules (aka "norms"). How we expected our government to function was mostly due to people not abusing certain things, or if they did eventually even their own side would cut them off.
McConnell took that to the extreme with the Supreme Court seat, and it worked. So now they will push it further.
But I think it really started with the Tea Party movement. They showed that their particular brand of nationalism was palatable with a large enough number of voters, so they went with it. House Freedom Caucus comes directly from there.
If you follow this kind of meta-analysis of our news organizations and their intersection with public policy, education, history, etc. there's not a lot new in this article.
That said, it's a topic that I personally find interesting and worthy of keeping in mind.
Also, it has the typical amount of Salon.com hyperbole. Reader be warned :)
Ever since the "genius" marketers and campaigners realized how division, prejudice, and tribalism could be weaponized not only for political gain but massive monetary gain as well, the US has been on a downward spiral to implosion. Then again, maybe those problems had always been present and were just hiding beneath the surface.
I think that the media has played a role in the dumbification of American politics, but I think it is only one piece. I just finished a book called "Jesus and John Wayne" that details the rise of evangelicalism in American politics and it made a compelling argument that Christians becoming weaponized as a political tool is one of the main reasons for the current state of politics, I highly recommend it.