WSJ - Extreme insight
 

This is one paragraph in an opinion about the Bush whitehouse, but it rings very true about why, even here, things are the way they are.

"The Bush administration has underestimated the changed nature of modern media. The mainstream media alone is not the problem. All these political subjects -- the war, immigration -- get discussed at length, all the time, on talk shows and across the great expanses of the Web wilderness. In this new environment, the emotional content has become stronger and even more important than the facts, such as they are. The facts have been demoted. What's more, the language, the very vocabulary of all these conversations, has been ramped way up. Shrillness has monetary value now, and it has political value. If this were traditional spin, as the White House assumes, it wouldn't matter. But in our time the spin has become a vortex."

Is this why we can't discuss anything here?

That sounds about right.

I long for the days of "..and that's the way it is.." or "good night, and good luck"

AFJ

I that sums it up very well. Our political climate is dominated by spin rather than facts. We have lost the ability to have a dispassionate dialog about issues because every position is dominated my a need to control the message. The histrionics seem to just so far out of hand that we simply end up in name calling exercises.

Wittness some of the dialog on this forum.

Well, first of all that article, IMHO, is spinning that the "Whitehouse is right, just not getting it's message out effectively because of the spin from the opposition". I don't buy that. I think people hear the message, just don't like the content. The Whitehouse still gets their talking points out, just turn on AM Radio and hit the scan button.

The stakes are higher now, the Federal government spends 2.4 TRILLION dollars every year, 500 Billion in Defense, 100's of Billions in foreign trade. Laws that can make or break small or large businesses. Control of all that hinges on influencing a few thousand voters in Ohio or Florida.

In a sense, we are all fighting for our future's, trying not to lose more of what we had, what we have now, or what we hope to have.

Maybe the urgency of the Debate is an indicator that we Americans feel our country is headed in the wrong direction.

Only problem is that given the incredible left-wing bias that Walter has revealed in recent years, I seriously doubt that we ever got the truth about "the way it is" back in the old days. I'll take the competition of ideas anytime. Just imagine if we relied on Dan Rather and the NYT for all the news that fit to report, and fit to print...

Doesn't anyone remember a few years ago when those in the media were loudly complaining that the public was far to complicit in politics? Nobody seemed to care about anything politicians did--as it didn't really matter anyway.

Now we've swung to the other extreme, and the media just complains that we are too divided. :rolleyes:

Ya, the days when the leftist press was ignorantly thought of as incorruptible and unimpeachable...when we were easier to manipulate and brainwash. I bet you do long for those days. If the UN and the democrat party have their way you very well might.

No, I meant that I long for the days when news anchors just reported what happened.

Newsflash Mul, not everything is a left wing conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Are the paranoids after you as well?

AFJ

Murrow and Cronkite lied to the american public.

I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Re: WSJ - Extreme insight
 

Dead solid perfect. Emotion over fact, the "seriousness of the charge" versus the actual evidence, etc.

nothing new here - first predicted in 1964 - "The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html

The WSJ's editorial page is among the most conservative, right-wing of the major media sources.

You notice the right-wing WSJ was not editorializing about the emotional, shrill, ramped-up nature of modern political discourse in, let's say, early 2003.

No, not in early 2003 when the Administration was stampeding the country to war, the Vice-President was threatening us with Saddam's nuclear weapons ambitions, the President was invoking God-liberty-9/11 in every speech, and the airwaves were full of square-jawed ex-generals growling about how we were going to go into Iraq and stamp out Islamic terrorism. Not a hint of ramped up emotionalism then, eh?

No, the WSJ (and other conservative pundits) were perfectly happy with the nature of political discourse when things were going "their way".

It is only now that the conservatives are whining about the "changed nature of modern media".

Hint: the players who are complaining loudest about the rules are usually the ones who feel like they are losing the game.

I get the sense that because you consider the WSJ a conserative paper, you can can't agree with the sentiments. Am I wrong?

Additionally I think you missed Red-Beards question (Please correct me if I am wrong) entirely: Has shrill discourse reached the point in our society that even on this BB we can't have a civil discussion without it degenerating into flame throwing.

I agree with some of the WSJ's opinions, more often on economic/financial issues than social/political issues. I feel the WSJ's writers have some special expertise and credibility on the former - given the paper's focus - but not necessarily on the latter.

As for shrill flaming versus reasoned discussion, no question we have more of the former here than we should. We have some members who call those with opposite beliefs fascists and steaming piles of dog*****. Instead of distancing themselves from such nonsense, other members cheer them on. Then they complain about the flamethrowing.

Why are my ears burning?

The quote went more like "I stepped in some democrat today, I knew it was democrat because it was stinky and squishy"

Yup, that was the comment. Very classy, and not shrill at all :-)

Halm: You have it nailed. And people have gone to prove the freaking point right in this thread.

When I was very young, my Dad was a minister, and in the 60's our family had many evenings where parisheners and others would come to "discuss" the bible and other elements of Christianity. More recently in recalling his younger days, he has called those evenings " a complete waste of time" because nobody changed any opinions on anything, just argued. I think this board is very similar to those discussions.

But I've learned to skim it so as to not waste too much time. There are some people here who's opinions I enjoy reading, and some I just skim over......