[besson3c]

I think the media has established this sort of barrier where they determine whose opinions we listen to, and not only that, but how these opinions are expressed and what people are allowed to say and not say when given a platform of some sort.

What kills me is how much consternation and attention a story like the Hank Williams Jr. thing gets when his opinions may not be any more valid, insightful, interesting, or well-grounded than anything any one of us could come up with on this very forum. If one of us says something stupid ala the Hank Williams Hitler thing either on the internet or in private life, no big deal, it is just somebody saying something dumb, but if you are on TV or something you could be any old schmuck and what you say may invoke national conversation.

This is neither new nor profound, the platform is obviously a very powerful thing, being titillating draws attention, we all have an insatiable appetite for infotainment, but what seems to be new is when networks, political parties, companies, and whomever else are sort of expected to address this somehow, account for it, fire people, apologize, etc. The Joe the Plumber thing in the McCain campaign is a great example of this. Why can't we just blow off thoughts and opinions of people that have no real qualifications, experience, or any real uniqueness to their life that would make their thoughts and opinions any more valuable than anybody else's? I guess hearing from Joe Average every once in a while is sort of interesting, but it is such a small sample to be any sort of representation, it does not warrant clinging to these words and fussing over this so much, or does it?

It must be rather surreal for all involved when these sort of things happen: the political scientists, party strategists, academics, scientists, etc. clamoring for access to the media platform being passed over by Joe the Plumber, how profound an impact something like this has on people like Joe the Plumber and Hank Williams Jr., the specifics of what sort of people and comments cause a stir, etc.

Am I the only one that finds this sort of thing a little weird?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Joe the Plumber thing in the McCain campaign is a great example of this. Why can't we just blow off thoughts and opinions of people that have no real qualifications, experience, or any real uniqueness to their life that would make their thoughts and opinions any more valuable than anybody else's?

In the above case, because the person Joe was asking the same sort of thing about got elected President.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

In the above case, because the person Joe was asking the same sort of thing about got elected President.

Bingo! It wasn't about what Joe the Plumber said, it was about what the Presidential candidate said in response to Joe the Plumber's question.

Although in principle I agree with besson. Who cared what the Dixie Chicks thought of Bush for example? Only the media.

[besson3c]

Let's not obsess over the Joe the Plumber example before addressing the main point please, it is one of many possible examples. There have been many random-people-cause-shitstorm stories, and when you get to the end of those, there are all of the celebrities-causing-shitstorm stories too.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the media has established this sort of barrier where they determine whose opinions we listen to, and not only that, but how these opinions are expressed and what people are allowed to say and not say when given a platform of some sort.

What kills me is how much consternation and attention a story like the Hank Williams Jr. thing gets when his opinions may not be any more valid, insightful, interesting, or well-grounded than anything any one of us could come up with on this very forum. If one of us says something stupid ala the Hank Williams Hitler thing either on the internet or in private life, no big deal, it is just somebody saying something dumb, but if you are on TV or something you could be any old schmuck and what you say may invoke national conversation.

This is neither new nor profound, the platform is obviously a very powerful thing, being titillating draws attention, we all have an insatiable appetite for infotainment, but what seems to be new is when networks, political parties, companies, and whomever else are sort of expected to address this somehow, account for it, fire people, apologize, etc. The Joe the Plumber thing in the McCain campaign is a great example of this. Why can't we just blow off thoughts and opinions of people that have no real qualifications, experience, or any real uniqueness to their life that would make their thoughts and opinions any more valuable than anybody else's? I guess hearing from Joe Average every once in a while is sort of interesting, but it is such a small sample to be any sort of representation, it does not warrant clinging to these words and fussing over this so much, or does it?

It must be rather surreal for all involved when these sort of things happen: the political scientists, party strategists, academics, scientists, etc. clamoring for access to the media platform being passed over by Joe the Plumber, how profound an impact something like this has on people like Joe the Plumber and Hank Williams Jr., the specifics of what sort of people and comments cause a stir, etc.

Am I the only one that finds this sort of thing a little weird?

But HWJ didn't say anything dumb, he made an analogy to the situation, not the people - something that anyone should be able to understand if they've studied for the SAT. The "popular perception" exists because the vast majority of the voting public are sheep and they'll believe what they're told.

[subego]

Didn't we do this already?

Even the people at FOX News who were interviewing him thought he had gone off the reservation.

Maybe they didn't study for the SAT.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

But HWJ didn't say anything dumb, he made an analogy to the situation, not the people - something that anyone should be able to understand if they've studied for the SAT. The "popular perception" exists because the vast majority of the voting public are sheep and they'll believe what they're told.

I agree that he was making an analogy, I just said it was dumb because of the wisdom of stepping into anything that can be construed as a Hitler comparison when he could have made his same point with a different analogy.

But all of this is besides the point. Again, there are 2093402983 examples of celebrity/random person foot in mouth syndrome, no?

[SpaceMonkey]

The original post is a lot of hand-wringing about nothing in particular as far as I can tell. Why is one interested in anyone's opinion in the first place? If someone has celebrity their opinion is more likely to be sought out by the media because they figure it's more likely that someone will be watching. And they are right.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The original post is a lot of hand-wringing about nothing in particular as far as I can tell. Why is one interested in anyone's opinion in the first place? If someone has celebrity their opinion is more likely to be sought out by the media because they figure it's more likely that someone will be watching. And they are right.

But when the celebrity says something dumb/offensive/provocative, why can't these sort of things just blow over rather than invoking national discussion?

[SpaceMonkey]

Didn't it blow over? I mean, ESPN dropped him and that seemed to be it. The only people still talking about it as far as I can tell are people like us, where we aren't so much talking about the significance of it, but rather talking about the significance of the significance of it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Didn't it blow over? I mean, ESPN dropped him and that seemed to be it. The only people still talking about it as far as I can tell are people like us, where we aren't so much talking about the significance of it, but rather talking about the significance of the significance of it.

I think he released a single over the entire ordeal, so yeah its not quite blown over yet.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by finboy 

But HWJ didn't say anything dumb

Actually, he said what is quite demonstrably the dumbest thing anyone can say. The fact it was a terribly retarded analogy doesn't save anything.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think he released a single over the entire ordeal, so yeah its not quite blown over yet.

The players themselves doing things to sustain the coverage shouldn't really count as media sensationalism.

[The Final Dakar]

I dunno, the only reason they're reporting on it is because of the prior coverage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Didn't it blow over? I mean, ESPN dropped him and that seemed to be it. The only people still talking about it as far as I can tell are people like us, where we aren't so much talking about the significance of it, but rather talking about the significance of the significance of it.

Well, even if it was just us talking about it I wouldn't say that it has blown over, unless you mean "us" in a very literal sense, i.e. the MacNN thread is atypical.

It has invoked a flurry of infotainment pieces, sport shows talking about it, his single, etc.

[SpaceMonkey]

I guess my point is: so what if it lingers as infotainment? Colbert does the same thing, in terms of picking on relatively minor stories/perceived slights and riding them for stretches. I'm not suggesting that Williams has the same kind of ironic detachment as Colbert, but I do think that "us" at MacNN are atypical in terms of talking about this in a "what does it all MEAN?!?!?! / won't someone think of the children?!?!?" kind of way. As far as I know, while Williams has become a talking point in the infotainment news cycle, his opinion hasn't become a talking point in the national political debate.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Actually, he said what is quite demonstrably the dumbest thing anyone can say. The fact it was a terribly retarded analogy doesn't save anything.

I'll give you that the guy isn't the smoothest, but his analogy is pretty clear. He wasn't referring to the president as Hitler. Even with my public school education that sort of stands out. Whether he's dumb is a separate issue.

[screener]

Originally Posted by subego 

Didn't we do this already?

This forum just loves doing this.
Multiple threads about the same thing.
Odd.

[screener]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I'll give you that the guy isn't the smoothest, but his analogy is pretty clear. He wasn't referring to the president as Hitler. Even with my public school education that sort of stands out. Whether he's dumb is a separate issue.

Your street smarts are lacking.
He is referring to the black fascist.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Your street smarts are lacking.
He is referring to the black fascist.

I will argue, Grasshopper, that my street smarts are far more subtle than your developing ones. I choose to see the forest as it is, and not debate the color of the trees.

[screener]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I will argue, Grasshopper, that my street smarts are far more subtle than your developing ones.

If it walks like a duck yada yada.

Originally Posted by finboy 

I choose to see the forest as it is, and not debate the color of the trees.

Right, they're all the same.