Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
I think the consideration of the mainstream media is a mistake, myself. If you would like an example of what the media does to a once-pure brass tacks medium, look at the music industry. To say that the popularization and mass distribution improved the quality of the music that is being produced today would get many educated people to consider your sanity. The media is now doing that same exact thing with politics. The quality of political discussion is disintegrating as a result of the mass distribution of the concept of political power. Now, much like the music industry, any hack can get their time in the spotlight and their due consideration, simply by saying the right thing at the right time to the right people, no matter how incompetent they are.
Ann Coulter is like the Spice Girls. No depth, just fluff to arouse the public. Michael Moore is like Blink 182. Catchy shit that holds it's ground in the public's eye despite the fact that it's horribly contrived.
We've got a few one-hit wonders popping up every day. Tom Delay, Father Pavone, etc...
Now, you must realize that these people don't make a single bit of difference. They are, much like today's singers and bands, talking heads for much larger entities. Big companies and organizations pay them to say what they say. Sometimes they realize they can make money themselves by saying something just to perk people up. It doesn't matter though, you're still getting caught up in the soap opera.
I'm an advocate of stopping the problem at it's source. The source for the issues in politics is lobbying. I know, it's impossible. However, I'd rather keep my eye on the target than get caught up in all this song and dance.
|
This is actually one of the large failings of democracy-it places too large a burden on the populace. I agree that the majority of the political pundits are nothing more than "pop" acts, but those are also the most effective at getting a message across. I think when there was less competition, news organizations (at least television) could afford to be more interested in finding truth and working as the arm of the people without as much of an agenda. But if you look at newspapers, you will find much the same tactics and biases that are now being decried in television. IIRC, the Spanish-American war was largely orchestrated by William Hurst through the effective use of newspaper propaganda. So these issues aren't new, but I think are somewhat new to televison.
I also personally belive in the end justifying the means, so I generally support such noise if it accomplishes what I believe to be right, regardless of how it reaches that point or even the motives of others who have the same goal. That's how these people do make a difference-they drive forward an agenda. Do they create an environment where people can make the best informed decisions possible? No, they don't. But that's not their goal. And honestly, if they attempted that they would lose what influence they have (compare the Coulter thread and the CSPAN thread lengths for proof of this).
I really think your music analogy is very apt, only most people who do hold strong views aren't in the place of the music lover (who wants artistic expression and quality in music) but more in the place of executives who seek the most broadly-appealing, LCD, profitable music. Only in this case profit is measured by votes/public support for a particular agenda.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by guy44
Halx, I'd like to reform lobbying rules. I'd like to stop Republican abuse of power, petty shit, that includes denying the Democrats a room in which to caucus and be lobbied. But lobbying is the very lifeblood of democracy - we can't assume each senator and congressperson is going to go out and get all their info on every issue themselves. Groups have to take it to them, and make their case. This isn't to say lobbying doesn't need massive reform - I'm fully sick of the entirely rightwing K Street, for example - but you can't eliminate lobbying.
Oh, and Tom DeLay is not someone who "[doesn't] make a single bit of difference." Dude runs the House of Representatives.
|
I just wonder, do you seriously believe that Repub's are the only people who are petty and make use of lobbyist? What about the previous Democratic abuse of power when they controlled the houses, or when Clinton was renting out the White House? Or what about the teachers lobby, labor union PAC's, trial lawyers, etc.? Being blind to your own party's faults makes you come off like a partisan shill who lacks the ability to form their own opinions without first getting the party stamp of approval. And this isn't specifically directed at you, but there is alot of people who always rush to get in digs at the opposite party, while ignoring the same faults in their own (and often when their party does the exact same thing). And it's especially blatant when it's not even necessary for the comment to refer to one party or the other.