"manufactured drama" - that is a great phrase for what all of the mainstream media outlets do. And yes, it is making us all less informed. If anyone here has not read Neil Postman's "Amusing...
"manufactured drama" - that is a great phrase for what all of the mainstream media outlets do. And yes, it is making us all less informed. If anyone here has not read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", I strongly recommend it. While it was written to describe television media, it is just as applicable, if not more, to what we're seeing in the big corporate social networks too.
Treating politics as a sport also plays into the "horse race" aspect of the coverage, where basically every question thrown to the pundits is something along the lines of, "How will this effect...
Treating politics as a sport also plays into the "horse race" aspect of the coverage, where basically every question thrown to the pundits is something along the lines of, "How will this effect their polling?" It's basically impossible to learn about policy from any popular cable program. It's definitely true that politics is covered like a sport, which is exactly why CNN is playing up the drama in addition to the horserace. Has anyone watched ESPN this decade? Their programs rarely cover anything that happens on the field/court. It's all about off-court drama, legacy, or big picture stuff. Learning the outcome of the game, understanding how it's played, and appreciating the athleticism isn't enough. You also need to be emotionally invested in the story behind the game. Same thing is happening in politics coverage. Red v Blue will get boring after a while unless there is drama mixed in.
I think CGP Grey's This Video Will Make You Angry is the perfect companion piece to this. People need to be made more aware of the compromised systems of communication they're participating in,...
People need to be made more aware of the compromised systems of communication they're participating in, but the tragic irony is that all the institutions that could educate them on the matter are the ones who stand to gain from doing the opposite.
It's a shame that Communications is considered such a useless field of study at universities. What is usually written off as an easy A for frat bros and slackers might actually end up being one of the most important lenses with which to analyze modern discourse.
I agree strongly with a lot of the criticism of politics as infotainment/competition/celebrity/politicians rather than issues and taxpayer money. However, we live in a world where the competition...
I agree strongly with a lot of the criticism of politics as infotainment/competition/celebrity/politicians rather than issues and taxpayer money.
However, we live in a world where the competition for our attention is incredible. If news isn't entertaining og isn't presented in a way that makes people actually engage in the topic, it's for naught. Then people just don't care and don't get involved at all.
This is a huge issue for anything "serious" from boring sports that need to move into the 21st century, to life-changing issues like vaccines, education, taxation etc.
Sure the media has a huge responsibility for making news engaging in serious ways, but what's happening on all fronts is commercialization of everything we fill our time with. That's the only way you can possibly compete with billion dollar entertainment industries who are professionals at engaging us and getting us hooked, whether that's tv, movies, social media, sports, music, books or whatever else.
A modern politician is a professional attention-seeker. A ton of what they do and say is simply to get attention. Any attention. The issues are second in line.
We see this in education. Teachers who are exciting are revered, and teachers who are boring are panned, but some of education is fundamentally boring, and part of education is developing the...
We see this in education. Teachers who are exciting are revered, and teachers who are boring are panned, but some of education is fundamentally boring, and part of education is developing the skill of sustained mental attention and focus.
When students aren't buying in, we're told the solution is to make our lessons more engaging, and there are any number of ways to make things flashy and magnetic (consider how common the often eye-roll worthy "fellow kids" trope is for teachers). Unfortunately, doing this feeds the beast, and makes it so that students habitually learn that they should only engage with things that entertain them first, with education being a byproduct. It's a trojan horse of pedagogy, where learning is packaged inside a desirable exterior.
This has its place, especially at lower grades, but it's increasingly being pushed as the primary way to instruct students, particularly because so many of them have attentional needs that require immediacy and high levels of stimuli. Without slower, less engaging, and more prolonged tasks, students won't develop the mental stamina for sustained work or thinking, and there's no quick, easy, flashy way to develop those.
While there are undoubtedly some just flat out boring teachers, many modern teachers who get criticized for being "boring" are simply not giving in to the attentional encroachments encouraged by modern media and an increasingly on-demand, individualized culture. They expect a level of patience and stamina in their students that's not only seen as increasingly less realistic, but something that's increasingly less valued as well.
After all, the attentional pinch is inescapable, and it seems to affect adults as much as it does kids. I find myself unlocking my phone the moment I'm idle, even for a few seconds. I'll open an app, idly look at something inconsequential, and close it, only to repeat the same exact process with the same exact app mere seconds later. It's the digital equivalent of opening the fridge even though you're not hungry. I find long sit-and-listen meetings intolerable, when I used to cherish the mental downtime. If a YouTube video doesn't grab me in the first 5 to 10 seconds, I'm likely to close the tab. I'm a fully-grown, fully-developed adult, and I'm still highly susceptible to the squeeze of modern stimuli and convenience.
So what if people weren't engaged in debates and other political events? I don't want politics to compete with sports, movies and social media. Isn't it somewhat a person's responsibility to know...
However, we live in a world where the competition for our attention is incredible. If news isn't entertaining og isn't presented in a way that makes people actually engage in the topic, it's for naught. Then people just don't care and don't get involved at all.
So what if people weren't engaged in debates and other political events? I don't want politics to compete with sports, movies and social media.
Isn't it somewhat a person's responsibility to know what is going in politics and how it affects themselves and others? It can be both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivator.
But politics has to compete with all the other things we can use our time on. I don't want it to be that way, but it is. I certainly believe civic engagement is a personal duty. But what do you do...
But politics has to compete with all the other things we can use our time on. I don't want it to be that way, but it is.
I certainly believe civic engagement is a personal duty. But what do you do when almost half the population disagrees? Voter participation in the 2016 US election was an abysmal 54.7%. That's a huge democratic problem. Our representatives are meant to represent everyone. What happens when the governing of a population of more than 323 million people (2016) are determined by 136 million voters?
How does one engage those people who are disengaged? They really are disengaged. Mandated voting and other solutions that require constitutional amendment are non-starters because changing the constitution is way too hard.
What's left? Is it in the interest of all our elected officials to solve the problem? They're elected because of the demographic that's at home didn't vote. Who's in a position to get people involved? I'd argue all of them have a responsibility to do so, whether they're an influencer, a sportsperson, whether that's a business or others.
And the media is part of that. In politics they're a really large part of that. The media is the primary way politicians reach their electorate. For many, headlines or second-hand information based on a reading of headlines is all the politics they get.
One of the largest principles in the fourth estate is that media themselves set the agenda. They choose what to print and not to print. When they print something, they set the agenda.
That responsibility is still there although some shirk the responsibility for views, ad revenue or otherwise. That's an editorial choice. There's no obligation to be a microphone stand for all of Trump's tweets or to print the comments of anyone who doesn't allow them to ask the important questions that need to be answered.
The media is in many places losing the competition for our attention to social media and other modern entertainment. Politics is losing the battle for our time and attention when we meet and talk to each other.
What will it take to change that? For many i think a prerequisite is to get out of the way in which political news is currently reported. Who chooses how that's done? An editor. As consumers we influence that decision-making process. But the editor is still the one responsible for that decision based on the strategy of the media outlet.
Many people in this half of the population might want to be engaged. But if an average citizen looks at the current state of politics in the US, how could they ever become engaged? You see only...
I certainly believe civic engagement is a personal duty. But what do you do when almost half the population disagrees? Voter participation in the 2016 US election was an abysmal 54.7%. That's a huge democratic problem. Our representatives are meant to represent everyone. What happens when the governing of a population of more than 323 million people (2016) are determined by 136 million voters?
Many people in this half of the population might want to be engaged. But if an average citizen looks at the current state of politics in the US, how could they ever become engaged? You see only two extremes, with no common ground. If you don't like either position much, what options do you have? On top of that, I don't think most Americans trust their government. If you don't feel like you would make a difference, why would you even vote?
How does one engage those people who are disengaged? They really are disengaged. Mandated voting and other solutions that require constitutional amendment are non-starters because changing the constitution is way too hard.
Make the process of voting easier. I don't know whether you need to change the constitution, but:
Make it easier to vote (not having to register)
Make voting quick. It should take 5-10 minutes. There is no reason it should take longer.
Give votes equal weight in the final results. Not having the same weight makes people feel unheard/ignored.
Debates:
Debates should be on public channels and without commercial breaks
Every candidate gets a chance to respond to the same questions
Focus debates on particular topics
No crowds
Parties:
Have more than two options to vote for. I think this would make a lot more people feel heard. How? Not sure.
Money:
Not being able to buy yourself into elections. I think the new rules for participating in the Democratic debates are a step in the right direction. I believe you need a certain amount of donors and a number of polls that show you above a certain percentage of votes.
What's left? Is it in the interest of all our elected officials to solve the problem? They're elected because of the demographic that's at home didn't vote. Who's in a position to get people involved? I'd argue all of them have a responsibility to do so, whether they're an influencer, a sportsperson, whether that's a business or others.
If you, as a politician, believe that this group of non-voters is so disengaged, you will never do anything to get them to vote. You simply don't take them into account when thinking about policy. I believe that by having more parties, different voices can become heard and this will generate higher participation.
And the media is part of that. In politics they're a really large part of that. The media is the primary way politicians reach their electorate. For many, headlines or second-hand information based on a reading of headlines is all the politics they get.
I agree, but this has always been a problem. Not just today. But it's not just what the media is saying. It's also about reading comprehension. Today I listened to The Daily podcast and they said a lot of US students have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. Only 14% of US students can do this well. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/us-students-international-test-scores.html
This definitely applies to your last paragraph. If people don't understand what is fact and what is fiction, how are they even able to choose proper news sources?
Thanks @timo. This is a good point and I sometimes catch myself simply blaming the media when in fact the media wouldn't broadcast this garbage if we didn't choose to consume it. I think much of...
Isn't it somewhat a person's responsibility to know what is going in politics and how it affects themselves and others?
Thanks @timo. This is a good point and I sometimes catch myself simply blaming the media when in fact the media wouldn't broadcast this garbage if we didn't choose to consume it. I think much of our society has forgotten that living in a democracy is a big responsibility. It takes hard work to pay attention to the right information and stay informed enough to participate effectively.
We're almost in a perfect storm at the moment, where public engagement with the political process is failing and both our public education system and our news media organizations are deflecting attention further away from meaningful engagement. (I bet Noam Chomsky would have a thing or two to say about this.) How do we break out of this cycle?
As far as fleshed out proposals go, what it seems like we're stuck with is either the accelerationism of redlining everything until something breaks worthy of reforming the system around, the...
As far as fleshed out proposals go, what it seems like we're stuck with is either the accelerationism of redlining everything until something breaks worthy of reforming the system around, the liberal method of trusting the free market to figure it out, or a progressive model where something TBD takes care of everything all at once, but putting a plan forward is similar to letting the magic smoke out.
There are many who gain from political dysfunction and inaction. Many in that group are betting that the current status can be maintained to their benefit. It seems to me those bets are winning: I...
There are many who gain from political dysfunction and inaction. Many in that group are betting that the current status can be maintained to their benefit.
It seems to me those bets are winning:
I can't envision what issue could possibly clear the high hurdle of constitutional change. I can't imagine what issue could cross the current bipartisan divide to get broad majorities for effectively fixing most of the institutions that are broken. I can't think of a situation where one party gets a sufficient majority to do things on their own (and if that were to happen, what'd stop the pendulum from just swinging back an election or two later?) What topic could possibly lead to demonstrations on the scale needed for major social change today? Or behavior that'd lead to a large switch of federally elected representatives within the current electoral system?
I think this calculus is also what's leading the stock exchanges to be where they are: "Who is going to stop us now?" Profits=maximized.
"manufactured drama" - that is a great phrase for what all of the mainstream media outlets do. And yes, it is making us all less informed. If anyone here has not read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", I strongly recommend it. While it was written to describe television media, it is just as applicable, if not more, to what we're seeing in the big corporate social networks too.
Treating politics as a sport also plays into the "horse race" aspect of the coverage, where basically every question thrown to the pundits is something along the lines of, "How will this effect their polling?" It's basically impossible to learn about policy from any popular cable program. It's definitely true that politics is covered like a sport, which is exactly why CNN is playing up the drama in addition to the horserace. Has anyone watched ESPN this decade? Their programs rarely cover anything that happens on the field/court. It's all about off-court drama, legacy, or big picture stuff. Learning the outcome of the game, understanding how it's played, and appreciating the athleticism isn't enough. You also need to be emotionally invested in the story behind the game. Same thing is happening in politics coverage. Red v Blue will get boring after a while unless there is drama mixed in.
I love that phrase. Explains so much that is wrong with politics.
That was the actual title used by Vox, I editorialized it because I thought drama was more accurate. Well, you win some, you lose some I guess:P
/+ 1 recommendation and surprisingly relevant today as you say.
I think CGP Grey's This Video Will Make You Angry is the perfect companion piece to this.
People need to be made more aware of the compromised systems of communication they're participating in, but the tragic irony is that all the institutions that could educate them on the matter are the ones who stand to gain from doing the opposite.
It's a shame that Communications is considered such a useless field of study at universities. What is usually written off as an easy A for frat bros and slackers might actually end up being one of the most important lenses with which to analyze modern discourse.
I agree strongly with a lot of the criticism of politics as infotainment/competition/celebrity/politicians rather than issues and taxpayer money.
However, we live in a world where the competition for our attention is incredible. If news isn't entertaining og isn't presented in a way that makes people actually engage in the topic, it's for naught. Then people just don't care and don't get involved at all.
This is a huge issue for anything "serious" from boring sports that need to move into the 21st century, to life-changing issues like vaccines, education, taxation etc.
Sure the media has a huge responsibility for making news engaging in serious ways, but what's happening on all fronts is commercialization of everything we fill our time with. That's the only way you can possibly compete with billion dollar entertainment industries who are professionals at engaging us and getting us hooked, whether that's tv, movies, social media, sports, music, books or whatever else.
A modern politician is a professional attention-seeker. A ton of what they do and say is simply to get attention. Any attention. The issues are second in line.
We see this in education. Teachers who are exciting are revered, and teachers who are boring are panned, but some of education is fundamentally boring, and part of education is developing the skill of sustained mental attention and focus.
When students aren't buying in, we're told the solution is to make our lessons more engaging, and there are any number of ways to make things flashy and magnetic (consider how common the often eye-roll worthy "fellow kids" trope is for teachers). Unfortunately, doing this feeds the beast, and makes it so that students habitually learn that they should only engage with things that entertain them first, with education being a byproduct. It's a trojan horse of pedagogy, where learning is packaged inside a desirable exterior.
This has its place, especially at lower grades, but it's increasingly being pushed as the primary way to instruct students, particularly because so many of them have attentional needs that require immediacy and high levels of stimuli. Without slower, less engaging, and more prolonged tasks, students won't develop the mental stamina for sustained work or thinking, and there's no quick, easy, flashy way to develop those.
While there are undoubtedly some just flat out boring teachers, many modern teachers who get criticized for being "boring" are simply not giving in to the attentional encroachments encouraged by modern media and an increasingly on-demand, individualized culture. They expect a level of patience and stamina in their students that's not only seen as increasingly less realistic, but something that's increasingly less valued as well.
After all, the attentional pinch is inescapable, and it seems to affect adults as much as it does kids. I find myself unlocking my phone the moment I'm idle, even for a few seconds. I'll open an app, idly look at something inconsequential, and close it, only to repeat the same exact process with the same exact app mere seconds later. It's the digital equivalent of opening the fridge even though you're not hungry. I find long sit-and-listen meetings intolerable, when I used to cherish the mental downtime. If a YouTube video doesn't grab me in the first 5 to 10 seconds, I'm likely to close the tab. I'm a fully-grown, fully-developed adult, and I'm still highly susceptible to the squeeze of modern stimuli and convenience.
No wonder the kids are having a hard time!
So what if people weren't engaged in debates and other political events? I don't want politics to compete with sports, movies and social media.
Isn't it somewhat a person's responsibility to know what is going in politics and how it affects themselves and others? It can be both an intrinsic and extrinsic motivator.
But politics has to compete with all the other things we can use our time on. I don't want it to be that way, but it is.
I certainly believe civic engagement is a personal duty. But what do you do when almost half the population disagrees? Voter participation in the 2016 US election was an abysmal 54.7%. That's a huge democratic problem. Our representatives are meant to represent everyone. What happens when the governing of a population of more than 323 million people (2016) are determined by 136 million voters?
How does one engage those people who are disengaged? They really are disengaged. Mandated voting and other solutions that require constitutional amendment are non-starters because changing the constitution is way too hard.
What's left? Is it in the interest of all our elected officials to solve the problem? They're elected because of the demographic that's at home didn't vote. Who's in a position to get people involved? I'd argue all of them have a responsibility to do so, whether they're an influencer, a sportsperson, whether that's a business or others.
And the media is part of that. In politics they're a really large part of that. The media is the primary way politicians reach their electorate. For many, headlines or second-hand information based on a reading of headlines is all the politics they get.
One of the largest principles in the fourth estate is that media themselves set the agenda. They choose what to print and not to print. When they print something, they set the agenda.
That responsibility is still there although some shirk the responsibility for views, ad revenue or otherwise. That's an editorial choice. There's no obligation to be a microphone stand for all of Trump's tweets or to print the comments of anyone who doesn't allow them to ask the important questions that need to be answered.
The media is in many places losing the competition for our attention to social media and other modern entertainment. Politics is losing the battle for our time and attention when we meet and talk to each other.
What will it take to change that? For many i think a prerequisite is to get out of the way in which political news is currently reported. Who chooses how that's done? An editor. As consumers we influence that decision-making process. But the editor is still the one responsible for that decision based on the strategy of the media outlet.
Many people in this half of the population might want to be engaged. But if an average citizen looks at the current state of politics in the US, how could they ever become engaged? You see only two extremes, with no common ground. If you don't like either position much, what options do you have? On top of that, I don't think most Americans trust their government. If you don't feel like you would make a difference, why would you even vote?
Make the process of voting easier. I don't know whether you need to change the constitution, but:
Debates:
Parties:
Money:
If you, as a politician, believe that this group of non-voters is so disengaged, you will never do anything to get them to vote. You simply don't take them into account when thinking about policy. I believe that by having more parties, different voices can become heard and this will generate higher participation.
I agree, but this has always been a problem. Not just today. But it's not just what the media is saying. It's also about reading comprehension. Today I listened to The Daily podcast and they said a lot of US students have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. Only 14% of US students can do this well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/us-students-international-test-scores.html
This definitely applies to your last paragraph. If people don't understand what is fact and what is fiction, how are they even able to choose proper news sources?
Thanks @timo. This is a good point and I sometimes catch myself simply blaming the media when in fact the media wouldn't broadcast this garbage if we didn't choose to consume it. I think much of our society has forgotten that living in a democracy is a big responsibility. It takes hard work to pay attention to the right information and stay informed enough to participate effectively.
We're almost in a perfect storm at the moment, where public engagement with the political process is failing and both our public education system and our news media organizations are deflecting attention further away from meaningful engagement. (I bet Noam Chomsky would have a thing or two to say about this.) How do we break out of this cycle?
As far as fleshed out proposals go, what it seems like we're stuck with is either the accelerationism of redlining everything until something breaks worthy of reforming the system around, the liberal method of trusting the free market to figure it out, or a progressive model where something TBD takes care of everything all at once, but putting a plan forward is similar to letting the magic smoke out.
There are many who gain from political dysfunction and inaction. Many in that group are betting that the current status can be maintained to their benefit.
It seems to me those bets are winning:
I can't envision what issue could possibly clear the high hurdle of constitutional change. I can't imagine what issue could cross the current bipartisan divide to get broad majorities for effectively fixing most of the institutions that are broken. I can't think of a situation where one party gets a sufficient majority to do things on their own (and if that were to happen, what'd stop the pendulum from just swinging back an election or two later?) What topic could possibly lead to demonstrations on the scale needed for major social change today? Or behavior that'd lead to a large switch of federally elected representatives within the current electoral system?
I think this calculus is also what's leading the stock exchanges to be where they are: "Who is going to stop us now?" Profits=maximized.
I feel like this seems from the 24 hour news cycle. There isn't enough news, so let's turn it into a never ending team sport.