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've often felt that City-Data Forum was generally a less formalized introspective into typical American thoughts. You have those on the left and those on the right. You have the religious, non-religious, and people who simply don't care. You basically have those who come from all walks of life, all mindsets, and all opinions. In general, it is indeed a slice of America. And, for that reason, I'd like to focus on a general similarity I see on this forum which is highly represented as a microcosm of America in general.
The title of this thread may seem like a bit of a non-sequitur. How is it possible that politics could actually be usurped in its divisiveness by the very media that reports on it? After all, the job of journalists is to collect and gather information on current events and report on them so the general public can make intellectual decisions based on what they read or watch on television. The average citizen, of course, should be able to keep in mind that each reporter and each news organization has their own agenda (some more obvious than others) which they too would like to promote.
However, it seems that we have come to a crossroads in our highly technical society whereby we are inundated with news twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. The waiting rooms in hospitals, doctors offices, automobile repair shops, restaurants, and gyms across the country blare the news as loudly as possible. Some of our journalists and political correspondents have turned into virtual rockstars. They promote their own books, TV shows, and ideological thought processes to satiate an egotistical grandeur unparalleled in this country's history.
We have also come to a point in American history where it seems as though we have two parties that are diametrically opposed to one another while the followers of those parties have become even more radically opposed to one another. Who is to blame for this? Are the ideologies of either party so consistently opposite of one another that one party (or group of party followers) cannot see the good of a single thing the other party promotes? I don't think that's the case. Given the fact that for decades and centuries party lines were easily crossed depending on the bills, laws, or legislations being proposed. That is not to say that both parties handsomely agreed with one another but the fierce opposition we see in regards to anything and everything promoted by one party or the other seems almost unprecedented in our country's history.
If we look back at human history, there are plenty of examples of party lines being crossed. The Treaty of Tripoli, approved by the Senate in 1797, consisted of twenty-three out of thirty-two Senators (the other 9 were not present for various reasons) who voted unanimously for it. Franklin D. Roosevelt worked side by side with a Republican Senator (George Norris) to create the Social Security Act. The New Deal was also promoted by Roosevelt and though it had its detractors in the Republican Party, there were those who supported it and helped write it from within. During the Reagan era and even afterwards, there were factions of people throughout America who were called "Reagan Democrats" for various reasons. During the Johnson Administration, there were many from both sides who both supported the Vietnam Conflict and there were those who rallied against it. The few that I've just mentioned are some of the more notable examples of our government's history of being able to work side by side. There are surely countless other examples that are better left for another time and another place to be mentioned.
A lot of Americans seem to forget that politics in our unhappy Republic is still driven by popular opinion and that our Senators, Congressman, and other elected officials still do march to the beat of popular opinion. They are forced to do so because of one thing: re-election.
Re-election is dictated by the terms of popular opinion, i.e., the sum total output of a collective consciousness within society that promulgates or detracts from a given candidate's number of votes. The collective consciousness of today's society is influenced now like no other time in history by national news networks, divisive political correspondents, and sub-conscious interference with logical decision making by powerful media broadcasting. What has ultimately happened as a result of this is not the powerful voice of an American public who has thought for themselves what they like and dislike. It is the powerful voice of an American public reiterating their streams of bloviated rhetoric received from 24/7 news organizations like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al.
It should come as no surprise that recent Gallup Polls and research from the Pew Research Center found that an overwhelming majority of Americans prefer news media that is more "centralized" to their views. More studies have shown that while network and local TV News programming has stayed relatively stable, the increase in cable network programming is rising at an alarming rate. Even more research has shown that online news from cable networks is doubling (and in some cases, tripling) every year in terms of dedicated readers.
While the divide between left and right has always been a somewhat noticeable one, the divide has now turned into something more resemblant of Africa's Rift Valley. It has become commonplace for America's cable news networks to not only criticize politics to feed a centralized viewership but it also consistently attacks the competition it has from other cable news organizations as being dishonest, less watched, while simultaneously making partisan claims. This collective harvesting of human minds has been similarly done in countries suffering from bouts of totalitarian rule. The USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and North Vietnam all had or have their own state-run media organizations that consistently condemned, denied, or lied about reports being run from countries that offered citizens the freedom of journalistic reporting. Make no mistake about it. Journalism in this day and age is a Capitalist enterprise. The type of Capitalism that believes strongly and firmly in a strict Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and a Randian view that the common people of America are nothing more than leeches sucking the blood of the real people in power. In order to promote that same sense of discontent in the public, even the daunted and favored Capitalism of those in the West still shows signs of reflective dominance over the people and citizenry it tends to represent.
And yet, in a day and age where nothing can get accomplished, we must ask ourselves one thing: Isn't the shambles of our political separations nothing more than a candid reflection of the people's divisiveness? And, isn't that divisiveness most clearly recognized in the stalwart way the cable news media outlets attack one another unmercifully?
Fox News runs consistent segways into their commercial broadcasts declaring it "The most-watched cable news channel." Political pundits for Fox such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck make a fortune drawing subtle gestures of disagreement while utilizing scare tactics and making bold claims of unfair reporting by other news outlets. Again, this all serves to centralize the viewers, solidify an opinion, and create a plethora of zombies who thereby push their elected officials to run away from the "socialists" in charge of the country.
CNN and MSNBC aren't much better. They don't seem to be as shamelessly egotistical as Fox about their status as a news organization. But, they each have their own correspondents and pundits who consistently talk about "the enemy" as being Fox News and other conservative media outlets.
It seems that the more America becomes brainwashed by the consistent separation of ideologies driven by a Darwinian need within journalism's existence to dominate the planet, the more separated our politics is going to become. When this country finally learns how to think for itself instead of reciting what they heard by the latest rockstar political pundit on a cable news network the night before, we may actually get back to creating bills and legislation that work for all of America. Until then, it's going to be a terrible road ahead with America becoming more and more crazed and incensed over every piece of legislation produced throughout this great land.
Roosevelt once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Right now, we have a country riled in fear and that is being promoted from within by a bunch of greedy, mind-controlling cable news networks. That fear is being allayed onto the way our politics works because the collective consciousness of society has also subconsciously dictated that our two main political parties must be diametrically opposed to one another. That has come about because of nothing other than the mindless tomfoolery presented by our mainstream media.
I've often felt that City-Data Forum was generally a less formalized introspective into typical American thoughts.
I'm far more skeptical of that. It seems to me that forums tend to attract particular, small subsets of people . . . there are some differences in just what subset depending on what forum we're talking about (and not just City-Data). But most people I know irl wouldn't bother with online forums for a variety of reasons--usually because they don't want to deal with all of the drama, neuroses and other personality quirks of the regulars--and those folks' views and attitudes often do not seem to be reflected by any of the folks who are attracted to forums.
Quote:
They promote their own books, TV shows, and ideological thought processes to satiate an egotistical grandeur unparalleled in this country's history.
That's not really a new phenomenon . . . I'm not sure what time scale you're thinking of, though.
Quote:
We have also come to a point in American history where it seems as though we have two parties that are diametrically opposed to one another while the followers of those parties have become even more radically opposed to one another.
I also do not believe this is a new phenomenon, and radical opposition predates Republicans and Democrats. For example, the Whigs were just as vehemently opposed to the "Democratic-Republican" party (different than modern Democrats and Republicans) as contemporary Democrats are to contemporary Republicans.
Quote:
It seems that the more America becomes brainwashed by the consistent separation of ideologies driven by a Darwinian need within journalism's existence to dominate the planet,
I also find the idea that most folks uncritically and "literally" simply accept whatever they hear in the media to be extremely dubious.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the media is really just blowing so much hot air as usual.
Real applicable political power is more localized to some extent at the city and county level and/or especially at the State level and the highest echelons of the Federal Government. I doubt those folks even look at the media, except to gauge their public perception, and you can bet they aren't making their decisions based on the what the TV blowhards say.
The fact of the matter is there really isn't much of a division, except among average citizens who have no say in actual policy or proceedure and are therefore irrelevant, no matter what they do or don't believe in.
In actuality, the media is just stirring a pot of nothing for monetary gain, nothing more.
I feel it more the Politicians, Look at the big thing over the racial problems. It did not get as heated until Obama took office and now it seems that every time you turn around the Democrats are using the race card to get what they want. If you look at the average neighborhood, school or workplace all types get along fine. I'm not saying thats true in all but in most. I think if they would stop throwing it up it would be fine.
Mainstream media is a business and it's most coveted inventory is the fluff that it dispenses. Most of those who want real news have long shunned the work of those rockstar TV news types and instead prefer the web based news and current affairs blogs. I like the stuff on the web that caters to those with views similar to mine, I find the TV to be useless as far as news is concerned. It's very obvious that most media is tied to the corporatized version of America, all the phony patriotism and divisive shouters are the meat and potato's of that one big necessity of American politics, "keep em divided", it's what they do best.
The two go hand-in-hand. Rachel Maddow: politics or media? Rush Limbaugh: politics or media?
to me there is no clear division.
but given two nebulous ideas to compare, i'd say politics is a more divisive force than media. Media's agenda is just to make money, and there are many benign ways to achieve this. Politics' agenda is to rule, and to do this, they create two seperate narratives based on two competing sets of facts.
I feel it more the Politicians, Look at the big thing over the racial problems. It did not get as heated until Obama took office and now it seems that every time you turn around the Democrats are using the race card to get what they want. If you look at the average neighborhood, school or workplace all types get along fine. I'm not saying thats true in all but in most. I think if they would stop throwing it up it would be fine.
Well, this is the kind of mentality that I'm trying to address (not that I'm saying there's something wrong with your mentality ).
Certainly, when major "racial events" happen you're going to hear about it and you're going to hear about it everywhere.
But, when you cut through all of the nonsense floating around out there, are the politicians really making as big a deal out of it as the media does? If you have one comment that may be insinuated as racial from, say, a Republican official and you have a condemnation of that by, say, the Democrats, that is what you have.
However, once the media gets a hold of it, every major political pundit, talk show host, and talk radio persona gets to chime in and say their piece. All of a sudden, an off-the-cuff remark (that may have only been a poorly worded phrase) turns into a glaring battle of "The Republicans are racists" while others say "The Democrats are playing the race card, again!" Before you know it, people are clamoring back and forth and the common public begins to talk about it and perceive it in their own way.
A few weeks down the road, something similar happens. Another off-the-cuff remark is made, some Senator is interviewed in the middle of the night and he's cranky and says something he doesn't really mean... The next thing you know, the same crackhead "journalists" are back at it again. They bring up the incident a few weeks ago, they bring up other prior incidents, and then they get each respective side to believe that the other is completely and utterly wrong. There is no gray area coming from the media. It's a complete and utter "You're either with us or against us" mentality.
Here's an interesting experiment:
The next time an off-the-cuff remark is made, something dumb is said, someone has a slip of the tongue, or just makes a plain human error, watch the political reaction to it. Keep in mind only the response that the other side gives. It will, of course, be exploited by the opposing party and they will use it to their advantage... But then they'll let the media take care of it.
Keeping in mind the response, then watch your favorite political pundit or listen to your favorite radio show host talk about it. It doesn't matter which "side" it is... Just listen to it... Watch how they interview members from every major organization associated with whatever was said in order to "heighten the severity" of the issue. Then, watch the opinions they give. Watch how they track backwards the historical venues upon which affiliates of the same party (or candidate's backing) made similar comments. Watch how a stupid comment gets turned into a virtual nightmare.
And yet, the main people involved (the two opposing political parties) often leave it as a rather simplified manner. So, I ask, who is really making the big deal out of things? Is it really the politicians? Is it the media? Or is it the politicians handing it off to the media because they know what's going to happen?
I'm not saying our politicians are exemplary people who can do no wrong. Far from it. I'm just saying that the media tends to blow things way out of proportion, it in turn riles up the American public, and the American public eventually creeps its way into hating anything and everything about "the enemy." Eventually, a continuum occurs where every single thing "the enemy" does must be harshly retorted and fought against without any sort of logic or rationale applied to the arguments being made. And guess what? Those irrational and illogical arguments are often sensational arguments reiterated from the rockstar political pundits of the previous evening's cable news show.
A huge part of the problem is that most people confuse "Commentary" with "Journalism". The lines have been crossed.
For instance, Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. are "right wing commentators" and make no qualms about it. They tell you upfront what they are.
O'Reilly is also a commentator, but not as partisan as the others.
Beck is more of a teacher. The more he learns, the more he has to talk about.
Now, Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow are "Commentators", but play themselves off as "journalists". They will never state the fact that they are NOT journalists. Ed Schultz is just an angry man.
In fact, about a year ago, Olbermann called Beck "THE worst person in the world" because Beck stated the fact that Olbermann was, indeed, a "Left wing commentator".
This is where some people get their actual news! Even the MSM....ABC, NBC, and CBS as well as NPR, the NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, etc. lean left.
A huge part of the problem is that most people confuse "Commentary" with "Journalism". The lines have been crossed.
For instance, Rush, Hannity, Levin, etc. are "right wing commentators" and make no qualms about it. They tell you upfront what they are.
O'Reilly is also a commentator, but not as partisan as the others.
Beck is more of a teacher. The more he learns, the more he has to talk about.
Now, Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow are "Commentators", but play themselves off as "journalists". They will never state the fact that they are NOT journalists. Ed Schultz is just an angry man.
In fact, about a year ago, Olbermann called Beck "THE worst person in the world" because Beck stated the fact that Olbermann was, indeed, a "Left wing commentator".
This is where some people get their actual news! Even the MSM....ABC, NBC, and CBS as well as NPR, the NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, etc. lean left.
The bottom line....journalism is dead.
The fact that people actually bicker and fight over whether or not certain "journalists" and "commentators" espouse the ideologies of a certain party makes me feel that my stance is better supported. I literally watch people argue, debate, and get bent out of shape over which news organization is better than the others. People who watch Fox News rally against CNN and MSNBC like it's anathema. Those who watch CNN and MSNBC do the same thing to Fox.
It's as though the actual battle of ideologies is not within politics but within the media and how it's presented. There's something wrong with that picture. People are getting crazed and stirred up over media frenzies - not actual issues!
The way I see it, the politicians are dividing America via the main stream media... The media industrial complex uses the "line in the sand" to divide America, getting us to bicker about trivial issues while they rape and pillage our country.
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.
).
