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'm not a "bland citizen"; I subscribe to strong values and beliefs, but a familiarity with the workings of the parliamentary process from an early age also instilled a respect for the American Constitution, and the system of governance which has sustained it for the past 230 years.
But I view our traditions of self-restraint, pluralism. and freedom of thought and expression as coming increasingly under attack, and I view increasingly irresponsible behavior by the eletronic media, and its Madison Avenue allies, as the principal culprit.
Almost undoubtedly, the emergence of television has been the largest single contributing factor. Franklin Roosevellt's fireside chats demonstrated broadcasting's power, but it was the coming of TV that really "fired up the afterburner", for television is both geared to a modest level of education, and programmed to the desires of an audience seeking fast, even instant gratification. That sets the stage for the polarization of the present day.
When my career plans suffered a setback some years ago, I spent some time in the developing "call center" environment; specifically, one serving the Internet and cable TV industry. I was witness to both a public conditioned to expect too much, too easily, and a system of mangement designed to identify and suppress the individual who might "go rogue". But it's not only the more-educated and more-articulate who are being watched. The local Social Secuirty and IRS offices now maintain full-time security, mostly against the lone individual who might go over the edge, when the big, friendly box turns its back.
In recent years, we've seen more and more incidences of the rampage by a single, alienated, usually-but-not-always male loner, Even though a firearm was not involved, I expect yesterday's tragedy in Wisconsin to bring only more calls for resrictions on the rights and options of the responsible majority, as opposed to a media culture that creates, and even nurtures lone nuts.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 11-22-2021 at 05:09 PM..
Do the electronic media promote societal polarization?
Yes they do. Mostly I'd point to the decimation of quality LOCAL news sources.
1) The well edited printed newspapers that EVERYONE in town read ... and almost all at about the same time each day.
2) The well edited radio and tv news programs that EVERYONE in town heard ...and almost all at about the same time each day.
Chet Huntley (at NBC) had a different style vs Walter Cronkite (at CBS) ... but they didn't vary much beyond that.
Television, social media, or the nightly news, are simply a reflection of the American state of mind, so I don't see it as the genesis for any lone nut case escapades. what I do see as a very real threat to society is the general lack of an educated populace. I'm speaking to the fact that millions of children are poor readers, and thus drawn into the electronic space that passes for social inclusion these days. Welcome to the "digital community."
Gaming, social media, and the news outlets, are simply a good fit for the uneducated mind, among the truly educated, these things get little traction. Dumbed down parents usually produce dumbed down children, it's not difficult to understand. When we see the BLM riots and the Jan 6th insurrection, we are seeing the extremists in our midst, and most come from that strata of the dumbed down, clueless and ignorant..
I read on City Data most every day, I read through the volumes of political vitriol from those who seem to wake up hating the world, and those people are a far worse threat to our collective sense of decorum than the "lone nut" could ever pose. Political polarity is simply the evidence of poor comprehension skills, people not seeing or understanding the plutocrats ruse of keeping the low men fighting while the upper class reaps the harvest of all that division.
Thinking that the collective of media simply sneaks up on the thinking person, then proceeds to remove his brain, replacing it with images of gaudy celebrity, and all manner of nonsense, is--nonsense in itself. Blame our fellow citizens for their own lacking, not the circus that follows them with 24/7 entertainment, not the TV itself, but moreover the lacking of good sense to turn the damn thing off once in awhile.
Television, social media, or the nightly news, are simply a reflection of the American state of mind...
I don't think you could be more wrong on this point.
1) By inflating "social media" to the same level as professionally edited, researched and produced material.
2) By inverting the cause and effect relationship between presenter and receiver.
Quote:
...I read through the volumes of political vitriol from those who seem to ...
Do you suppose these voices have ANY sort of qualification to vet sources for their assertions?
Of course not. And neither do most of their sources. The rest have some other, often nefarious, agenda.
It's not news. It's not even "opinion" in the traditional sense -- and they don't understand the distinction.
Quote:
Political polarity is simply the evidence of poor comprehension skill...
Mostly agree... but 'simply' really isn't a part of it and THAT is an even deeper problem.
It's intentional, blurring that distinction, on the part of those unqualified and agenda driven ^^ sources.
The know their audience and happily exploit their ignorance -- in service of eyes on screens and advertising $$ -- and the nefarious agendas^^.
Quote:
Blame our fellow citizens for their own lacking, not the circus that follows them with 24/7 entertainment, not the TV itself,
but moreover the lacking of good sense to turn the damn thing off once in awhile.
Mostly agree... but the blame for their weak reading skill (etc) really lies at their parents feet.
ftm... that they, or so many of them, exist at all also lies at their parents feet.
Last edited by MrRational; 11-25-2021 at 01:47 PM..
I don't think you could be more wrong on this point.
My point was that TV programming, or the news media, isn't as influential as some would like to think. The lack of a good education creates a void that the media can, and do, exploit, but they aren't necessarily creating that void. Too many in America are just not capable of understanding the vast complexities of their society, the news media content reflects that lacking and attempts to serve up their fare in a way that diminishes the contents depth to what they consider the low levels of American comprehension.
I've known people who were unable to grasp the gist of what was being said to them, an example would be someone I worked with listening to a far right wing commentator and mistaking the entire harangue as a centrist and logical view. And, as a result of that ignorance, and lack of a valid frame of reference, they all too often vote against their own, and our, best interests. In other words, uneducated people promote societal polarity, TV just helps that effort but doesn't initiate the friction.
Does media have an agenda? Yes, more money in the till, more viewers, more advertisers, more celebrity, but no, I don't see media as the evil apocalyptic juggernaut that we can blame for all our social friction. I blame the lack of critical thought, and that seems to be something one would need today in order to separate fact from fiction.
At any rate, people have been influenced for ages by a sundry of means, the traveling snake oil salesmen, Chautauquas, books, rumor, and legend. The truth of things is often hard to find, and modern communication devices aren't sworn to the truth or the lie, but they most certainly ARE sworn to the sound bite depth of their content. Most intelligent people know that media is severely flawed, so in that view, we really are faced with the specter of ignorance, not TV.
I think we need to be a little careful of the terms we use here.
Take any particular "electronic media" source. Does it "promote" polarization, or does it allow polarization?
Does it tolerate polarization, or does it foster polarization?
I am often aghast at what goes on on some media sources. But that collides with freedom of speech. It's not an easy answer, in my view.
I think we need to be a little careful of the terms we use here.
Take any particular "electronic media" source. Does it "promote" polarization, or does it allow polarization?
Does it tolerate polarization, or does it foster polarization?
I am often aghast at what goes on on some media sources. But that collides with freedom of speech. It's not an easy answer, in my view.
"as opposed to a media culture that creates, and even nurtures lone nuts."
If I understood the OP, sociopaths who commit all manner of mayhem are being created by "the electronic media culture." These "male loners" are supposedly inspired by the media to go on a rampage of violence and destruction. That's a far reach to think that TV can alter the consciousness of an individual to the extent that the person becomes psychotic. I'd suggest that these psychopath's are "created" by mental illness, beyond that realization we can easily see how the TV may be "talking to" the person, even encouraging the person, but, most of us know that mental illness is the reason for the psychosis.
"for television is both geared to a modest level of education, and programmed to the desires of an audience seeking fast, even instant gratification. That sets the stage for the polarization of the present day".
Again, TV is seen as the provisioner, "setting the stage" for political/social polarity, seemingly dismissing racism, economic inequities, educational inequality, classism, gender inequality, and a host of other divisional aspects of American life. TV news certainly mines these divisional aspects for any opportunity to increase it's market share, and yes, TV news is sensationalized, often offering opinion disguised as news. To say that TV is geared to those who possess a "modest level of education" is being very gracious, I'd probably not be so kind when describing what I think of those who seem glued to the tube..
Yes they do. Mostly I'd point to the decimation of quality LOCAL news sources.
1) The well edited printed newspapers that EVERYONE in town read ... and almost all at about the same time each day.
2) The well edited radio and tv news programs that EVERYONE in town heard ...and almost all at about the same time each day.
Chet Huntley (at NBC) had a different style vs Walter Cronkite (at CBS) ... but they didn't vary much beyond that.
Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman tackled this era in Manufacturing Consent. It wasn't as rosy as you paint it. Consent was manufactured the way widgets are manufactured, without much deviation between units. The product was reliable and interchangeable.
That doesn't mean it was always an accurate representation of reality, or the will of the people.
That was the era of high modernism and the media of the day reflected the broader milieu.
We now live the post-modern era of fragmentation and personal realities, and our current media reflects that milieu.
One of the first things you learn in an American politics course is that the distribution of political opinion is bimodal. There's a lump of people on the left and a lump of people on the right, and a trough in the middle. To make it simple, say the electorate is 40% left, 20% centrist, and 40% right.
The mid-century catering of mass media to the center was an economically suboptimal arrangement forced by the limitations of technology. Media technology of the day was broadcast; you could only send out one message within your allotted bandwidth. So to cater to the largest market, the media players catered to the center and watered down the message.
Fast forward to the internet. The internet is multicast; you can send out many messages at once to different people. This allowed the economics of mass media to be refined to a more profitable place. Instead of appealing to the milquetoast middle, media players could tailor their messages for small segments of the market and develop a passionate following.
In politics, the natural cleavage between markets is the bimodal left-right distribution. Combine this with the constellation of American media outfits, contrasted with say the BBC, and now you have the potential for *branding*. One brand targets the left, another brand targets the right.
The polarization was always there. It was just papered over in the past by the limitations of technology.
"as opposed to a media culture that creates, and even nurtures lone nuts."
If I understood the OP, sociopaths who commit all manner of mayhem are being created by "the electronic media culture." These "male loners" are supposedly inspired by the media to go on a rampage of violence and destruction. That's a far reach to think that TV can alter the consciousness of an individual to the extent that the person becomes psychotic. I'd suggest that these psychopath's are "created" by mental illness, beyond that realization we can easily see how the TV may be "talking to" the person, even encouraging the person, but, most of us know that mental illness is the reason for the psychosis.
"for television is both geared to a modest level of education, and programmed to the desires of an audience seeking fast, even instant gratification. That sets the stage for the polarization of the present day".
Again, TV is seen as the provisioner, "setting the stage" for political/social polarity, seemingly dismissing racism, economic inequities, educational inequality, classism, gender inequality, and a host of other divisional aspects of American life. TV news certainly mines these divisional aspects for any opportunity to increase it's market share, and yes, TV news is sensationalized, often offering opinion disguised as news. To say that TV is geared to those who possess a "modest level of education" is being very gracious, I'd probably not be so kind when describing what I think of those who seem glued to the tube..
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.
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.
