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.
After reading the thread "Who is the most hatefull media personality", and googling most of the media personalities, it is clear that aggressive speech and hateful comments are a big part of American politics (or atleast in the media). This is of course also noticable if simply watching many s.c. "news channels" and listening to political speeches.
My question is, as this behaviour is banned from Swedish media/politics and I have never encountered it outside the US, why is this going on?
Do people enjoy listen to such discussions, and/or do they actually contribute anything (positive)? Also, when did it start?
What is your opinion, should this type of behaviour be allowed, or should it be stopped?
(This thread makes no distinction between liberal and conservative actions, so please, only address the "overall" picture)
It has always gone on in the US. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel started over political differences. Sometimes it was more polite among the candidates depending on their personalities. But much of the press has always catered to the lowest common denominator. Much of the media is in business just to get advertising revenues. So they cater to their target audience. Only the public can stop it by not encouraging it and participating in it.
It has always gone on in the US. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel started over political differences. Sometimes it was more polite among the candidates depending on their personalities. But much of the press has always catered to the lowest common denominator. Much of the media is in business just to get advertising revenues. So they cater to their target audience. Only the public can stop it by not encouraging it and participating in it.
pretty sure that poster from 2009 has long since given up on getting an answer..
pretty sure that poster from 2009 has long since given up on getting an answer..
It's funny how his complaint has become even more widespread in the present. I think there was less fallout form political opinions back then than today. It's gotten so people can't even discuss politics with someone with opposing views without arguments and hard feelings. I can't even talk politics with two of my friends because it would blow up the friendships. Opposing political views are seen by the participants as proof of mental and moral defects rather than a difference of opinion.
It's a shame this thread was ignored for so long. Maybe because it was buried in Media? (hint, hint') I'm not a fan of the sub-sub forums in Politics. Nor am I a fan of "Sticky"s or random threads that are consolidated into an undecipherable mess.
But to answer the OP, now long gone, no doubt...
I think the Media brought it upon themselves. They are the ones who chose to be divisive. Do the Swedish media blatantly lie about their opposing side or do they try to give balanced reporting?
After reading the thread "Who is the most hatefull media personality", and googling most of the media personalities, it is clear that aggressive speech and hateful comments are a big part of American politics (or atleast in the media). This is of course also noticable if simply watching many s.c. "news channels" and listening to political speeches.
My question is, as this behaviour is banned from Swedish media/politics and I have never encountered it outside the US, why is this going on?
Do people enjoy listen to such discussions, and/or do they actually contribute anything (positive)? Also, when did it start?
What is your opinion, should this type of behaviour be allowed, or should it be stopped?
(This thread makes no distinction between liberal and conservative actions, so please, only address the "overall" picture)
Thank you
A lot of US politics these days is what I call oppositionalism. People tend to focus on what they don't like about the other side rather than what their side actually wants to implement/achieve.
It's been like this maybe since the Nixon era (1968). I recall walking into a bookstore around 2003, and there was a whole shelf full of political books with "I hate" in the title. Most of them were of the "I hate George Bush" variety. There was one titled "Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly" (famous conservative commentator at the time).
It's a shame this thread was ignored for so long. Maybe because it was buried in Media? (hint, hint') I'm not a fan of the sub-sub forums in Politics. Nor am I a fan of "Sticky"s or random threads that are consolidated into an undecipherable mess.
But to answer the OP, now long gone, no doubt...
I think the Media brought it upon themselves. They are the ones who chose to be divisive. Do the Swedish media blatantly lie about their opposing side or do they try to give balanced reporting?
I agree. Why do they care if there are multiple threads on certain topics? I never understood why people dislike it. There can be multiple takes on an issue.
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.
