| Author |
Message
|
| Bunbury |
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: Who's really to blame for the politicians we get? |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 835
|
Interesting snippet from Robert Reich's blog.
| Quote: |
I was on television recently, debating a conservative. It's something I do fairly often. During a commercial break, the producer spoke into my earpiece. "A bit more energy," he said.
"What do you mean?" I answered, slightly hurt. I thought I'd been doing a fairly good job scoring points.
"Rip into him. Only three minutes in the next segment and we want to make the most of it."
………………..
I asked the producer who was talking into my earpiece why I had to rip into my opponent. "We see viewership minute by minute," he said, hurriedly (the commercial break was about over). "When you really go after each other, we get a spike."
It's the spike I'm worried about. I chose not to rip into my opponent but, then again, I'm not running for president. The public says it's tired of gladiator politics. But take a closer look. Political ripping and slashing is is one of America's favorite spectator sports. And the media that informs us about the candidates, and the advertisers who dictate the terms by which they do so, have data to prove it.
|
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kojax |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1052
|
It's hard for us to understand this on a posting board because what we're doing is debating, but not everyone knows how. Some people only know how to insult and intimidate one another. They'll laugh at the smackdown one guy is giving to another and think "Wow, he's really letting that guy have it!!" But they don't even know what the discussion's about or what the points people are making even mean.
I think most people would find a genuinely intelligent, calm debate about as entertaining as watching a computer programmer type code on a screen. Other programmers might appreciate what he/she is typing and totally roll on the floor laughing at the wittiness of some of the commands they invoke, but your average joe would get bored and change the channel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Selene |
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Banned
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 1060
Location: I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
|
| kojax wrote: |
It's hard for us to understand this on a posting board because what we're doing is debating, but not everyone knows how. Some people only know how to insult and intimidate one another. They'll laugh at the smackdown one guy is giving to another and think "Wow, he's really letting that guy have it!!" But they don't even know what the discussion's about or what the points people are making even mean.
I think most people would find a genuinely intelligent, calm debate about as entertaining as watching a computer programmer type code on a screen. Other programmers might appreciate what he/she is typing and totally roll on the floor laughing at the wittiness of some of the commands they invoke, but your average joe would get bored and change the channel. |
Oh now come on, you can't beat a good punch up
and verbal dissing
What do most people watch telly for?
How come all the stuff with the most violence and outrage gets the most ratings?
In answer to the question of this post.
People vote in politicians.
People are to blame for being stupid.
Most people haven't evolved much further than the Roman games.
_________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love a bit of SLAP & TICKLE
You Tickle
I'll Slap
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1273
|
"Chicken or the egg"; Media caters to the public and with out acceptance of an audience, will fail. Generally the public, for political or social issues will read/listen to media they agree with or have like viewpoints.
All things considered, IMO we have and do manage to get some pretty good people to run and be elected to public office. To even subject yourself to running, its with the understanding nearly half of the people will oppose you and the other half are not going to be 100% behind you.
Then, regardless how clean a life you have lived (no one is perfect), you and your family or friends will become targets for those trying to defeat you in an election or to limit your term if elected. Politics is not for sissies, never was and never will be and those that achieve the higher status in their systems are judged for years, even after death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Who's really to blame for the politicians we get? |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 519
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
Interesting snippet from Robert Reich's blog.
| Quote: |
I was on television recently, debating a conservative. It's something I do fairly often. During a commercial break, the producer spoke into my earpiece. "A bit more energy," he said.
"What do you mean?" I answered, slightly hurt. I thought I'd been doing a fairly good job scoring points.
"Rip into him. Only three minutes in the next segment and we want to make the most of it."
………………..
I asked the producer who was talking into my earpiece why I had to rip into my opponent. "We see viewership minute by minute," he said, hurriedly (the commercial break was about over). "When you really go after each other, we get a spike."
It's the spike I'm worried about. I chose not to rip into my opponent but, then again, I'm not running for president. The public says it's tired of gladiator politics. But take a closer look. Political ripping and slashing is is one of America's favorite spectator sports. And the media that informs us about the candidates, and the advertisers who dictate the terms by which they do so, have data to prove it.
|
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/ |
I am not certain who 'the public' is supposed to be. Surely there are groups within the public. If the viewership of this sort of programme is only a few percent (or less, I've no idea) to begin with, then despite the irksome nature of this sentiment in the populace, it seems like a fundamental piece of human nature that needs be tolerated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 835
|
| Quote: |
| I am not certain who 'the public' is supposed to be. |
touché
But Reich seems to be addressing the apparent necessity for the quality political discourse to be market-driven. If he won't play the game he might not be asked back, and the quality takes another small step downwards.
On a side issue, I'm puzzled how there could even be "spikes". How do people not watching the program know that there's something juicy occurring in time to switch channels? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cold Fusion |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Posts: 793
Location: In the circuitous haze of my mind
|
The idiot citizens that can't tell the sky from the earth are to blame.
_________________
Forget all that you know, achievements can only be accomplished by starting from nothing and selectively applying facts that are purely objective and absolutely necessary.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
-Einstein
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php
Use your computing strength for science! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
The elections are a circus sideshow
You can not put all the blame on the public, for they rely on the information they are given and that information is manipulated to marginalize some information and focus the people's attention on other information
Look at the Office of Public Information (OPI) during WW1 which would later serve as inspiration for Nazi Propaganda. You had pioneers in psycho-analysis working on mass manipulation like Edward Bernaise engineering consent. Not only fake news stories like the ones planted to whip up support for the spanish-American war, but you had magazine articles and movies made or altered to whip up an anti-german frenzy. They even had something like 75,000 hired shills going town to town to speak an influence opinion.
So right off the bat the Media is propaganda even before you get even close to an election. Operation Mockingbird showed that not only corporations steered public opinion but CIA Agents are at every level of major news networks, and people will not doubt lies because they are printed in respectable magazines like Popular Mechanics or News papers or on TV.
The occasional false flag operation, killing US citizens to help sell a war is also an option, USS Liberty is an example, as were the operation Northwoods plans.
When election time comes, most of the time 3rd party candidates get virtually no air time or coverage, and among the pre-selected candidates the most corrupt and elite supported get more coverage on debates. The 2004 election was between 2 yale aristocratic candidates both members skull and bones, what kind of rigged choice is that?
On top of that election fraud is going on as was seen in 2000 (and 2004).
In 2008 of the pre-selected candidates, the ones with more focus were all members of the CFR, in both parties. People are being lied to by the media, think tanks, politicians, so I have a hard time blaming the people
Last edited by icewendigo on Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 519
|
What is the CFR?
It was my understanding that the republican candidate won by default, in other words no one really wanted him they just, as a group, dis-wanted  him less than the other primary candidates, all of whom took extreme views in some area or other. Also I was given to understand that Clinton was a 'lock' early on but did not win the democrat nomination.
But the system is confusing and perhaps I misunderstand your post, in fact I likely do. 
Still, an idea comes to mind. With the rise of blogs, one can get one's information from sources even less honest than traditional media. Do blogs constuitute propaganda, or opinion (or is it a matter of opinion whether they are prpaganda  )? And, isn't the media, in a sense, in some cases, such as Limbaugh, merely glorified blogs. Media might be propagandist but perhaps that is the nature of using a human brain as a conduit for information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
free radical
CFR = Council on Foreign Relations
Your observations are correct imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
