Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I literally blame "60 Minutes". And the reason I say that is, as far as I remember, "60 Minutes" with their "Point/Counterpoint" segment many years ago was one of the earliest and most-watched efforts to mine the division in the 1970s. It just seemed to snowball after that. Some of their 'contributors' were simply obnoxious and at least partly responsible for the culture wars.
Really? When I was a kid I watched 60 Minutes with my family. The Point/Counterpoint segment was one of my first introductions to debate, and I believe it provoked critical thinking. Although I think most of them are dead now, I will always have fond memories of Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Charles Kuralt, and Morley Safer.
I can't speak for the series nowadays, as I don't watch much television -- at least, not as much as I did as a kid when nightly TV viewing was a family affair and the entire family commented on and critiqued what we watched together (even the sitcoms). Different times, back then.
If you want an example of a television series that attempted to mimic (badly) 60 Minutes' Point/Counterpoint segment only to promote division, I would choose Crossfire, co-hosted for a time by Pat Buchanan and then later by Tucker Carlson.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 11-27-2021 at 02:13 AM..
I agree that media has a lot to do with the current polarization of America. I feel it has a lot to do with the almighty dollar. The "Big Media" companies are all publicly traded for the most part, those hedge funds and investors who own stock in the media companies are expecting the highest returns they can get. By law those corporations have to earn the most they can. CNN made 100x more money by hating Trump than by reading about Aunt Mable's art collection.
Also, the Dem Party spends 1B in advertising dollars during an election year. The Rep Party spends the same. Don't you think that CNN and MSNBC and FOX are out there vying for a large chunk of that spending? Cause they are.
As long as we allow our media companies to pick winners and manipulate the narrative, the corporations won't stop. If we the people turn off our TVs and demand a different form of media (newspapers), well the corporations will take notice. CNN has been losing viewership for years to the point where a major shakeup is happening in Jan. CNN is going to try to get out of the political commentary business.
In general, agree with this. The infotainment industry makes hundreds of billions of dollars in advertising by manipulating consumers. CNN and Fox will do what any good corporation will do - go after any dollar fluttering in the breeze, regardless of how filthy it might be or whether blood is dripping from that dollar.
But to go back to the OP's question - the introduction of technology into the wild, first with TV and now with the Internet was a wild card. No one really had the slightest idea where this social experiment might go, whether it would have a positive or a negative impact on our world.
Personally I think that these technologies have caused a significant degradation of our critical thinking skills. TV and later the Internet displaced reading as a way to pass time. Reading and literacy are essential to develop a reasoned logical view of the world around us. Without those skills, it is easy to become polarized and lazy and to adopt conspiracy theories or popular memes as brain fodder.
Television, social media, or the nightly news, are simply a reflection of the American state of mind.
I disagree. Most media is scripted to evoke an emotional response, to make their specific demographic want to know more. Invoking fear is very effective; people try to find out more to protect themselves. The viewers relate to the the subject matter, and feel smart when it agrees with their world view.
Got a lot of parents watching? Talk about schools or playgrounds.
If lots of racists watch your channel, show pictures of blacks and immigrants doing scary stuff.
You're a liberal outlet? Show rednecks doing stupid stuff.
You appeal to conservatives? Show somebody destroying a cross or flag or statue of a Confederate general.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 11-27-2021 at 10:27 AM..
Reason: Charged language.
In general, agree with this. The infotainment industry makes hundreds of billions of dollars in advertising by manipulating consumers. CNN and Fox will do what any good corporation will do - go after any dollar fluttering in the breeze, regardless of how filthy it might be or whether blood is dripping from that dollar.
But to go back to the OP's question - the introduction of technology into the wild, first with TV and now with the Internet was a wild card. No one really had the slightest idea where this social experiment might go, whether it would have a positive or a negative impact on our world.
Personally I think that these technologies have caused a significant degradation of our critical thinking skills. TV and later the Internet displaced reading as a way to pass time. Reading and literacy are essential to develop a reasoned logical view of the world around us. Without those skills, it is easy to become polarized and lazy and to adopt conspiracy theories or popular memes as brain fodder.
There is no critical thinking skill left. Most don't read past the title. When you try to have a discussion or debate and the other side don't agree with you, they will go into personal insult. This is especially try for the Millennials and younger.
The media is not hold accountable to spreading lie. It is not misinformation, IT IS LIE. One of the first item to learn about journalist school is verify the source, but nowadays, there is no such thing. Any garbage is put on site. NYT used to the standard (20+ years ag0) and now it pure trash (there is still some good stuffs, but I don't real it any more). Sadly, people, like my highly education sister still believe the media will verified the source before they put it on their site and defend them at all cost.
I disagree. Most media is scripted to evoke an emotional response, to make their specific demographic want to know more. Invoking fear is very effective; people try to find out more to protect themselves. The viewers relate to the the subject matter, and feel smart when it agrees with their world view.
Got a lot of parents watching? Talk about schools or playgrounds.
If lots of racists watch your channel, show pictures of blacks and immigrants doing scary stuff.
You're a liberal outlet? Show rednecks doing stupid stuff.
You appeal to conservatives? Show somebody (must be a demtard) destroying a cross or flag or statue of a Confederate general.
The news is a business, first and foremost. Securing and maintaining market share is part of their business strategy, and yes it is dramatized as part of that attempt to gain market share. The main point is that these news outlets aren't "creating" news, they are reporting what would be considered the big stories of the day. Is the commentary scripted? Hell yes, it's TV, and most intelligent people know that network news has a dramatic angle to it in order to "serve" their patrons. The music, the dramatic voice overs, the entirety of sensationalized content, it's a circus of angst disguised as news, but you know that...And, you also know that the "news" is just a business.
People come to the media with their own bias fully intact. The reporters don't need to inflame, lie, or edit the video footage, they just put out the story in their usual dramatic fashion. Your own summation of the news media makes my point, and that is that millions don't think the news has a lot of credibility. If you know some who is responding to the news to the extent that they are going off the deep end, driving their car into a crowd, shooting people at the mall, at work, you could say they watched the TV and got riled up, or you could just admit that the person is nuts, with or without TV news.
The question is, does the news "create" these stories? Do they hire actors who then "riot" for the camera? Are they paying someone to go to the mall and shoot people? Of course not, they report that news-- and the viewers own bias takes over and completes the narrative. Humans have been causing grief for thousands of years, they have been severely polarized over religion, over Clan differences, and all manner of disputes, they've been killing, raping, stealing, enslaving each other, all--before electricity..It is people who do bad stuff, it's people who "promote" polarization, but, the good part is that these folks who ARE unduly influenced by what they see or hear are in a very small minority. For most of us, TV news is taken with a huge pinch of salt..
Really? When I was a kid I watched 60 Minutes with my family. The Point/Counterpoint segment was one of my first introductions to debate, and I believe it provoked critical thinking. Although I think most of them are dead now, I will always have fond memories of Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Charles Kuralt, and Morley Safer.
I can't speak for the series nowadays, as I don't watch much television -- at least, not as much as I did as a kid when nightly TV viewing was a family affair and the entire family commented on and critiqued what we watched together (even the sitcoms). Different times, back then.
If you want an example of a television series that attempted to mimic (badly) 60 Minutes' Point/Counterpoint segment only to promote division, I would choose Crossfire, co-hosted for a time by Pat Buchanan and then later by Tucker Carlson.
Keep in mind that Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Charles Kuralt, and Morley Safer did not participate in point-counterpoint. That was reserved for people like Shana Alexander, James Kilpatrick, Pat Buchannan, and the likes.
Keep in mind that Harry Reasoner, Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Charles Kuralt, and Morley Safer did not participate in point-counterpoint. That was reserved for people like Shana Alexander, James Kilpatrick, Pat Buchannan, and the likes.
You're right. I guess my memory of the series I watched as a kid must be a bit blurred. I don't remember Pat Buchanan being a part of 60 Minutes.
In more recent years I've watched Bill Maher's panel segments on HBO's Real Time and found those to be informative and thought-provoking, as well as entertaining. The panelists discussing their opposing viewpoints seem to respect each other as individuals, even when they don't agree with each other.
I literally blame "60 Minutes". And the reason I say that is, as far as I remember, "60 Minutes" with their "Point/Counterpoint" segment many years ago was one of the earliest and most-watched efforts to mine the division in the 1970s. It just seemed to snowball after that. Some of their 'contributors' were simply obnoxious and at least partly responsible for the culture wars.
This fosters an idea that there is a duality with equal merit to every issue. This leads to the notion that, no matter how idiotic and bereft of any rational or evidentiary support, a claim is equal to its counterclaim. This sort of harebrained 'thinking' is embraced by people who claim the Earth is ~6000 years old, that bigfoot roams the Pacific Northwest, that extraterrestrials routinely kidnap people, and so forth. It allows those who would have continued segregation, and the criminalization of homosexuality, and all manner of other noxious ideas, to simply pass off them off as 'equal opinions'.
But I don't really blame 60 Minutes. I blame the charlatans who peddle the false premise, and I blame those gullible enough to be suckered in by it.
You're right. I guess my memory of the series I watched as a kid must be a bit blurred. I don't remember Pat Buchanan being a part of 60 Minutes.
In more recent years I've watched Bill Maher's panel segments on HBO's Real Time and found those to be informative and thought-provoking, as well as entertaining. The panelists discussing their opposing viewpoints seem to respect each other as individuals, even when they don't agree with each other.
You may be correct about Pat Buchanan...I may be thinking of "Crossfire" with him. But my point is that shows like these began to foster sharper divisions in politics.
I also like Maher's panel segments, although at various times he has the 'right' more represented or not at all, but at least there is a sense of humor with that format that, I think, tones things down, and I feel those that he selects for the panel are not rabid on either side.
Do the electronic media promote societal polarization?
Political pundits on talk radio are the greatest contributors to social polarization in American culture. The damage is less in what they say and more in how they delivered the message. It has been going on since the late 1980s and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. The "in your face" adversarial approach has done much to destroy reasoned and responsible discourse. You are no longer defending your opinion with a reasoned argument -- you must be abusive and denigrating to the opposing view or those holding that view.
Secondly is the intolerance of the religious right and the televangelists. I watched one today, who is a local mega church mouthpiece, in a rant against almost every facet of popular culture. His target were inadequate or apathetic parents who allowed their kids to listen to music or go to movies or, when older, drink beer. His reasoning was that he was engaged in sinful behavior as a teen but found Jesus -- and he knows what their kids are up to. He lusted after a shirt with an IZOD alligator logo. Parent are admonished to "grab" [his words] their kids' cell phones and see what they are saying or seeing. That is just one example of the tirade. My guess is that many of the kids, when grown, will most likely put as much distance between them and their parents as possible under that scenario. Church membership has plummeted since the Culture Wars were ginned up by the religious right in the 1990s.
Cultural intolerance and rabid adversarial and confrontational dialogue did not just appear spontaneously in American society. They were injected into it to such a degree that polarization has become a major determinant of who we know, where we live, how we educate or parent our kids, what we buy, and what we believe. A decade ago there was a long outcry against political correctness and now we have the abusive finger-pointing over "cancel culture" and behaviors branded as "woke". It is all the same thing and there are forces in society pushing and benefiting from polarization.
One thing that we have lost is the notion of a common experience. When the majority of the population has a common experience, like the depression, dust bowl, WW1 or WW2, or even the Baby Boom polio or air raid drill experience, they had a common point of reference. My parents had WW2 and the Depression. My dad and his cohort didn't much talk about their WW2 experience because everyone they knew had the roughly the same common experience. As horrific as it may have been, it was so common that it did not define their life. Soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam to some degree, struggled to express their experiences to those with no concept of what they went through. Even at one time we had three TV channels and everyone saw the same shows and they knew that their friends probably watched much the same as they did. Everyone watched Walter or Chet or David deliver the evening news. There has not been anything like a common experience since 9/11 and not much before that going back decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
