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.
While watching the news this morning - Sunday morning news journalism shows - the Ray Rice case was mentioned and sure enough the female news reporter started on about how what he did is now "the national conversation". Gun control and bullying are part of "the national conversation" as are dozens of other topics I don't follow closely as they aren't part of my conversation.
Why is it any time something happens which somehow sets people back it becomes part of "the national conversation"?
What is "the national conversation" and why has it only been in existence since 2009? Is it a purely liberal thing only possible through the election of Obama? Maybe it has been around for ages, I have never paid attention to "the national conversation".
"Three months ago, in accepting the nomination of my party to be its presidential candidate, I said: Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace.
Since I spoke those words, I have had the chance to visit with Americans like you, all across the nation. I have brought that same message of peace as our primary goal.
But it hasn’t all been one-sided. I have had the chance not only to talk with you but also to listen to you about the course you believe our country should take. We have, in a way, been holding a national conversation together on the future of our country.
Tonight, I want to continue my part of that ongoing conversation, and offer what I believe are ways in which peace can be assured for every American family and for the world ..."
Why is it any time something happens which somehow sets people back it becomes part of "the national conversation"?
What is "the national conversation" and why has it only been in existence since 2009? Is it a purely liberal thing only possible through the election of Obama? Maybe it has been around for ages, I have never paid attention to "the national conversation".
The "national conversation" is what used to be referred to as water cooler talk. It's now about social media where opinions are posted for X minutes before something new comes along. It's about the political entertainment cable TV shows that create opportunities for elected officials to get in front of the camera and speculate and then there's the internet bloggers. Lastly, are the never ending polls of 500-1000 people that conclude with majority opinions on any topic. That pollsters can and do influence the poll outcome by the questions they ask does not matter so long as one agrees with the conclusion.
The "national conversation" is a media construct to make themselves look interesting and important of which they are neither.
I have never heard it referred to as the "national conversation," but the "national agenda" (which is presumably the same thing) is most certainly a media construct. The media has the power to shape any topic and bring it to the forefront, even influencing legislation, by what they choose to report, or not report.
A perfect example of this was the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994. For 60 years the FBI had a written definition of "Assault Weapon," until the national media changed it in 1994. According to the FBI from 1934 until 1994 the definition of an "Assault Weapon" was any weapon capable of fully-automatic fire. After the uninformed media got involved, the definition became purely cosmetic and had nothing to do with a weapon's rate of fire.
Conversely, the issues the national media chooses not to cover does not become part of the national agenda. No matter how important the issue may be.
As long as there is a national media, they will always have the ability to establish the national agenda. While that may not interest some, it is nevertheless a very important responsibility and one that should not be taken lightly by media consumers.
This is why the media must be held to the ethical standard of objectivity, because deliberately slanting the news one way or the other, while being entertaining, also deliberately distorts the national agenda. The national media is the unofficial "Fourth Branch of Government" because they have the power to influence the other three branches of government. Therefore, the national media should be taken seriously, particularly when they are deliberately attempting to mislead the public.
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.
it also leads up to political fodder for their candidate of choice
