MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Why does everything have to be political? (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/498745/why-does-everything-have-to-political/)

 
besson3c Mar 10, 2013 10:10 AM
Why does everything have to be political?
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 11:46 AM
Actually, it's because everything is political. I'm even talking about things where it's not obvious, unlike the First Lady making a national TV appearance. If you think that isn't political you're delusional, or are at least willing to distort the facts to serve your agenda.

If Maher were to actually think about it for a second as a compassionate human being, as opposed to the supreme asshole he is, he'd realize there's a difference between misstating the truth and overstating it, as have the people he makes fun of.

You know, I remember as a young lad hearing an interviewer talk to a higher-up in the Nation of Islam. It was a solid hour of the most insane, rage filled bullshit I've ever heard.

After it was over, many listeners (including myself) were left wondering what we should do with that, other than regard it as supreme lunacy, because make no mistake, that's exactly what it was.

My first instinct was most certainly to make fun of him.

The host said something very important, which has stuck with me until this day, "don't pay attention to what he said... pay attention to what makes him so angry that is what he believes".
 
besson3c Mar 10, 2013 12:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4220979)
Actually, it's because everything is political. I'm even talking about things where it's not obvious, unlike the First Lady making a national TV appearance. If you think that isn't political you're delusional, or are at least willing to distort the facts to serve your agenda.

If Maher were to actually think about it for a second as a compassionate human being, as opposed to the supreme asshole he is, he'd realize there's a difference between misstating the truth and overstating it, as have the people he makes fun of.

You know, I remember as a young lad hearing an interviewer talk to a higher-up in the Nation of Islam. It was a solid hour of the most insane, rage filled bullshit I've ever heard.

After it was over, many listeners (including myself) were left wondering what we should do with that, other than regard it as supreme lunacy, because make no mistake, that's exactly what it was.

My first instinct was most certainly to make fun of him.

The host said something very important, which has stuck with me until this day, "don't pay attention to what he said... pay attention to what makes him so angry that is what he believes".

There are many political things out there, I'm not saying that things that are masked to be apolitical are so. However, most of the population of this country is statistically apolitical, Maher is addressing them - Joe Sixpack. Joe Sixpack can be manipulated into certain decisions, opinions, lifestyle choices, whatever, but that doesn't make that person political, that makes that person simply ignorant and misinformed, and doubly so if this manipulation is based on flimsy content and/or lies. This manipulation is political rhetoric that both the left and the right use. Somebody who is considered political from a political science and statistical perspective (AFAIK) is somebody that generally follows the news and tries to stay relatively well informed. A subset of this population is considered ideologues, another subset your so-called swing voters. However, the clear majority of the population is apolitical, i.e. not well informed.

This is not new, and poking fun at the uninformed is not some sort of profound statement either, but what I found amusing was the contrast to how things seemed to be in the past, and how silly this has gotten.
 
besson3c Mar 10, 2013 12:09 PM
Then again, I'll grant you that Joe Sixpack probably hasn't wagered a war against science, that is ideologue rhetoric. I'm not defending all of Maher's points and examples.
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 12:22 PM
WRT the change, I'll trot out my pet theory.

In simplest terms, it's because the FCC, and therefore the government, used to be the gatekeepers to the media. At the exact same that started to fall apart, 9/11 happened, which made the game for keeps.
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 12:24 PM
IOW, democratization of the media coupled with an issue everyone cares deeply about in their own individual way.
 
besson3c Mar 10, 2013 12:35 PM
When did the big 24/7 cable news business really come to its own? When did Fox and MSNBC really discover that opinion based journalism would be such a hot selling commodity?
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 12:57 PM
It was always a salable commodity, the issue was the government wouldn't let anyone do it, or more accurately, everyone was afraid of the FCC. FOX pushed into this territory completely alone, and long before the situation we have now.

Then the Internet started to beat the living shit out of television, aided by thirst for discussion and understanding of this unbelievably big news event (9/11). The FCC slowly gets emasculated as what it watches over gets emasculated, and news organizations, which used to be supported by an entertainment monopoly, had to pay their own way, along with no longer having any government watchdogs.

The funny thing is, most of these news organizations are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. Cable news is for senior citizens.
 
besson3c Mar 10, 2013 01:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4220994)
It was always a salable commodity, the issue was the government wouldn't let anyone do it, or more accurately, everyone was afraid of the FCC. FOX pushed into this territory completely alone, and long before the situation we have now.

Then the Internet started to beat the living hush money out of television, aided by thirst for discussion and understanding of this unbelievably big news event (9/11). The FCC slowly gets emasculated as what it watches over gets emasculated, and news organizations, which used to be supported by an entertainment monopoly, had to pay their own way, along with no longer having any government watchdogs.

The funny thing is, most of these news organizations are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point. Cable news is for senior citizens.

Interesting theories.

Do you think the relevance of 9/11 was the idea that we were all blindsided by the event, which consequently sapped our remaining trust of media?
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 01:53 PM
No. I'm thinking it hastened, and put a more polarizing tone, on what was already in the cards.

People prefer a low-pressure, high volume pipe for communication. The pre-9/11 media was still firmly entrenched in a high-pressure, low volume model of bandwidth use.

I'm using the term "bandwidth" here in a wider sense than it's usually used.
 
subego Mar 10, 2013 02:03 PM
"Hush money" is awsome.
 
ebuddy Mar 10, 2013 07:04 PM
These things merely amplify our own persona, that's why cable news is popular. It's nothing new other than its availability.

I have absolutely zero desire to watch Maher, but I'm guessing he accepted some share of the blame in hyper-politicization? Some of the more absurd examples might include the President golfing or whatever... I don't know, but these were all things that built the media. Think about it. Brutally informative reporting on the actions of public and political figures is certainly nothing new and I'd argue was even more contentious throughout history. A leaders' party or politics become such an integral part of their identity that what they do is often viewed in light of their leadership position, their politics, and their party. That's just how it is. How expensive should the First Lady's dress be while in a recession or depression? How often should the President be seen golfing or hunting while folks are railing on fiscal cliffs? Etc. What did it look like to have a couple of establishment Republicans dining with the President while two Tea Party darlings worked overnight to bring attention to important matters of civil liberty? These have always been factors in reporting; the McLaughlin Group and other programs are highly argumentative and have been around since well before cable news and the others. AM Radio exploded in popularity because the messages carried in conservative programming resonated with a huge segment of the US population. This naturally carried over to cable news and the internet not unlike its progressive counterparts.

Otherwise, the media had always existed to be a thorn in the side of leadership whenever possible and always had a hyper-political component unless and until it is usurped by a centralized authority run amok.
 
Waragainstsleep Mar 11, 2013 01:37 PM
I'm not sure Maher's point was just about the media making things political. They can probably be blamed as the root cause of some things being political now, but the point is there are people arguing about stuff they didn't used to argue about and not just because they've been invited onto a sofa on Fox News or The View to talk about it.
 
The Final Dakar Mar 11, 2013 01:43 PM
Quote
Why does everything have to be political?
Because making it political makes it more personal which makes it more aggressive which leads to more conflict which leads to better ratings.
 
Uncle Skeleton Mar 11, 2013 01:51 PM
Politics is a drug. We're all addicted. The MacNN forums elite knew this 15 years ago, but did nothing to stop it. Nothing besides put cute little labels under our names.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2