I procrastinate way too much but that's my nature and I love it. This article was started on the night of the
VP Debate which will make some of the thoughts a tad anachronistic but
still relevant. Let's see where this ends ... "When an honestly mistaken man
sees the truth, one of two things happens: (1) he will either cease
to be mistaken, or (2) he will cease to be honest. For he will either
accept the truth or he will reject it. If he accepts it, he is no
longer mistaken; if he rejects it, he is no longer honest. It is as
simple as that. There cannot be such a thing as an "honestly
mistaken man" who has once seen the truth." Anonymous
The abiding lesson of this election season is the demise of true journalism. Its sad that even though the illusion of an open American democracy persists – there is the reality and a direct correlation between the shrinking ownership of the media space and the number of entrenched 'so-called' experts. The media space continues to shrink http://freepress.net/ownership/chart as does the dominance of the rather limited group of 'so-called' experts – your run of the mill pundits, talking heads. Being labeled a pundit used to mean that that particular person had earned the chops and had the intellectual honesty to be deemed an expert in their particular field. In typical American fashion, being an expert and skilled commentator has been turned on its head to now mean a person who can make pithy pronouncements on the fly and is capable of spewing catchy soundbites ad nauseum.
Some, if not most of today's pundits, these so-called experts need to be sent to prison for simply misrepresenting journalism and being intellectually dishonest. Although, I am still at sixes and sevens whether it is their particular audiences that need to be committed for not being a little more discerning – or that these paid hucksters are just that good at framing their bosses' messages. The capacity for independent thought remains such a foreign concept that reason is mostly considered and treated as something akin to the black plague. Meanwhile, all attempts at engaging in civil discourse is anathema to this 'oh so American' media system of entrenched beliefs. It boils down to this: "always defend our side of the coin" and at no time is one ever allowed to even consider the plausibility of rationale in the other side's perspective. Its attack, attack, and always denigrate the other side. In this warped system of an entrenched 'defend one side at all costs' – any move to the middle, to that place where there is the possibility of a confluence of ideas and any hints at agreement - are bad for business.
The media system is profit and ratings driven. Anything else - even simple journalism - is a surefire way to be quickly pink slipped. But, if one is able to promote their side of the coin while fear-mongering, and promoting misogyny, racism, sexism, and war-mongering - in other words keeping the general populace scared shitless, then one is assured of an eponymous show with full editorial control. Its always about the bottom line and the old adage from broadcast television remain "If it bleeds, it leads!" Its no longer about news but about driving eyeballs and ears to an increasing number of adverts. Its no longer your father's news programs as that has become a secondary if not tertiary raison d'être for most media outlets. They are more concerned about profitability than real journalism - how else can anyone explain all this endless, mind numbing reality programming? It is cheap and easy to produce and there's enough idiots in the world that crave attention such that they see this as their path to celebrity status, if not outright infamy.
Besides, a scared shitless and polarized nation is not only very good for business, but is also very profitable. The Citizens United decision in SCOTUS further legitimized the financing of that polarization and profits will soar when you have a compliant media further drawing the nation into this trap. Who needs the industrial-military complex when you have a polarized nation? Who needs another war on the credit card when you have a bunch of millionaires continuously pushing one particular side of the same agenda. They are further enabled by these faux-intellectuals, these wannabe millionaire pundits, whose sole purpose seems to be to agree with, and never dispute, whatever line of thinking or argumentation the anchors would be pushing. The liberal media desperately trying to prove that conservatives are the epitome of evil and the conservative media desperately doing the obverse. These are the current and modern crop of 'thinkers' that are seemingly allowed to dictate how the majority of the populace thinks … to think that these 'pundits' give voice to what amounts to being the only source of information for most of the voting public. Wow!
I enjoy politics as much as the next junkie but this has to be done on an even playing field. Some of these hucksters are treated like intellectual royalty – but all they have proven is that they are able to look attractive on the screen and wax loquaciously while vigorously defending their particular side of the coin. The invidious nature of this 'thinkingness' – this endless waiting to be told what and how to think - makes punditry must view television. The ratings speak for themselves. The sad part is that their only purpose is to further dumb down not only the country's internal political discourse but, even the most basic of world affairs. (Point in case is this continuing failure to understand the basic structure and organization of the United Nations especially membership in the Security Council and the veto powers vested in the five permanent members.) I wonder if this is stuff that ordinary folks should know – actually, scratch that it is stuff that should be common knowledge. I will quickly obviate that line of thinking by pointing out that this is material that should be covered in basic History (High School) or that it should be common knowledge what with the UN HQ being based in New York, the role of President Wilson in starting the League of Nations and Eleanor Roosevelt's role in promoting the concept of a United Nations and pushing for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What of the UN resolution that divided Palestine into two territories and created the state of Israel (UN Resolution 181 of 1947) the very reason why the USA declares itself Israel’s greatest ally because they (& UK) were instrumental in creating Israel as a permanent homeland for German Jews after WWII. A democratic and rich nation deserves a populace that is aware of its own immediate history - if you will, one that is nominally educated.
The fundamental question remains whether this is not what citizenship is all about – to be fully engaged, knowledgeable, and active in the systems that rule and define one's daily existence as an American? Besides, one of the most important and universal legal principles negates ignorance as a viable defense (ignorantia legis neminem excusat = Ignorance of the law excuses no one!) Should this concept not naturally extend to all basic governance and human rights issues affecting all citizens - regardless of nation? Why is it that some folks remain willfully ignorant and allow themselves to be manipulated into voting along extreme religious, political, and economic lines. Is it fair to entrust the direction of a country's economic policy to a majority of voters who do not understand the most basic of economic policies or economic strategies … I suppose this is how the genius of 'dumb-it-down' pundits (oxymoron I know but stay with me :) comes into play; the anchors and their subservient (invited) pundits then have to explain it in simpler terms for the general populace, the non-policy wonks. Some argue it really is not about knowing the inner workings of economic policy, but about dealing with the basic bread and butter issues of daily survival. This is why there is so much stock put on elected politicians. This, also, explains why there is such a concerted effort to focus on the performances rather than the substance of the debates. The presumption is that most of the audience failed to comprehend, hear or judge the quality of what the VPOTUS or LyingRyan were talking about – without simplifying it to performance and staging. How then can you convince the ordinary public (on the simple merits) of one side's policies as opposed to the other side's perspective.
Accordingly, then, the collective wisdom of the mainstream media is that the only way for the ordinary public to make heads or tails of the debate and policy issues is to reduce it to the level of entertainment. This is why the mainstream media trots out second tier pundits to bloviate on sartorial choices, non-verbal communication, and other ancillary fluff issues. The mainstream media will dedicate hours to the bells and whistles surrounding a debate (CNN is by far the worst) and trot out a dozen pundits and experts who all seem to agree on either who won or lost the debate. Hold on – won the debate? Lost the debate? What point system were they using – nah, they just look at each other and then, follow whatever choice the lead anchor suggests. Do these intellectual heavyweights ever consider the actual substance of the debate – you know the stuff that VPOTUS and LyingRyan actually said and argued about? There is enough folks out here that understand these policies, standards, and positions – there really were speaking in simple English and dealing with some small concepts. That is what the public should be allowed to base their decisions on – the substance, not the rest of the malarkey about body language, suits and the effectiveness or lack thereof of the moderators.
The old saw goes that “Age and wisdom will beat youth and enthusiasm” any day – that was proven in today's VP debate. The mainstream media's disseminated impression is that LyingRyan is supposed to be one of the leading intellectuals of the right. What a disappointment – the intellectual heavyweight never showed up or was seriously overwhelmed by the occasion. Nah, that's not it – LyingRyan really proved that he is an intellectual lightweight who has bluffed his way to the hilltop by regurgitating those pithy, bland right wing talking points. One of the great debating lessons from my misspent youth was that you either baffled with brilliance or you bluffed with malarkey – regardless of your actual grasp, and knowledge of the facts surrounding a subject. In other words, you could still offer a compelling defense of your positions through a coherent structuring and confident delivery of your malarkey talking points. Its rather unfortunate if your malarkey bluff is called and you do not have enough gumption to come back strongly … i.e continue the malarkey line but with a robust (and even more outrageous:) ) defense of your positions. That never happened today as LyingRyan was reduced to the water sipping, babbling almost incoherent youngster that he is. VPOTUS remained calm, confident and even somewhat cocky as he easily destroyed LyingRyan with cold hard facts, bluster, and well structured arguments. LyingRyan had to resort to gulping gallons of water as there really was no way to effectively slow down VPOTUS' assault.
The GOP's warmongering is really getting tiresome – where are they getting their intelligence? I think LyingRyan was pulling it out of his arse and was rightly called on it. I just wish that VPOTUS had actually just used the term bullshit - but malarkey has a certain gravitas befitting his office :) Biden's smile, laughter and look when he delivered the “What? Now, you are Jack Kennedy?” zinger is absolutely priceless. These are the moments and points of the debate that should be the foundation of an 'undecided voter's' decision making process. But, that is not how the rest of society is wired. There is an innate prejudice due to one's acculturation – that's how society tends to make its choices because most folks are too lazy to either actually think through their decisions or to think for themselves. So, it boils down to following the thinkingness of 'my' favorite group of pundits or just make those hard choices based on family tradition – mama always voted democrat or papa always voted republican and that's what I does. It follows the same principles that are applied to religious indoctrination. There will be peace on earth when society expands their horizons by questioning their acculturation and religious indoctrination. You know one can always dream :) Otherwise, all our choices remain a result of the accidents of our births.
Today's thought is from Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain): “I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious — except he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.”
Have fun always!!
