![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
futurebird.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI was swept up about the drama of Shirley Sherrod. It is easy for me to get pulled in by a story that seems if it will hold answers about the "race question" in this country. I want to understand what, if any, progress we have made increasing the understanding in the minds of the general public about how racism functions in the United States. I want to know to what degree my views are those of an outsider, and to what degree am I in-setp with what average Americans believes about race and racism. But, when I allow myself to become emotionally involved in a news story-- I fear that I'm not learning anything of the sort- The story itself and its outcome just are not that important. Very few people watch cable news. Most who do watch do so not to have their minds changed but to have what they already believe confirmed. I want to suggest that the way that a story plays out in the land of the 24-hour news cycle is not that important in the end.
Ultimately story like the one about Shirley Sherrod is good for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck since it gets them all viewers. I don't have TV but I will watch short segments from TV shows on youtube from time to time. I still consider that watching TV. So, I have watched more TV in the past few days relative to Shirley Sherrod than I have since Christmas. The story got them one more viewer ... even if I didn't see the advertisers. But hey, maybe if there are enough news stories that I feel the need to "follow" I will beak down and get a TV and a cable connection. That would be a huge victory for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck.
I suppose that there is the influence they can have on the rest of media. The O'Reilly and Beck and Fox News have successfully incubated stories that later passed in to NBC, and ABC and local news and news papers. These have much greater viewership and could have some impact on public opinion. I don't think Maddow or Olberman have been successful doing that as of yet. So, some one needs to watch so we know where this stuff is coming from. (But that's what media matters is for.)
When each of these shows spends so much time rebutting the other Maddow takes down the right O'Reilly (tries) to take down Maddow. And on and on, some of the time it starts to feel like a WFF for politics. The body slams look real enough and they are satisfying to watch: but really who cares what these people think of each other? I just don't ever want to forget that these shows are "news entertainment" -- they do not reflect what average Americans think of feel. They can be fun to watch, but do they have any impact on the political discourse beyond drumming up hype and controversy?
I just want to try to stay aware-- and not start treating this like it is the real heart of the debate about American politics. The real debate is next to water cooler in forwarded emails, at family reunions, during happy hour and between children and their parents, husband and wives, you and that one idiot cousin. It is dangerously easy to become a member of a faction. A Beckeeteer on the Mickey Beck show. A loyal guardsman of the Amazons of Maddow. Maybe it's fun too but it not real politics.
Ultimately story like the one about Shirley Sherrod is good for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck since it gets them all viewers. I don't have TV but I will watch short segments from TV shows on youtube from time to time. I still consider that watching TV. So, I have watched more TV in the past few days relative to Shirley Sherrod than I have since Christmas. The story got them one more viewer ... even if I didn't see the advertisers. But hey, maybe if there are enough news stories that I feel the need to "follow" I will beak down and get a TV and a cable connection. That would be a huge victory for Maddow, O'Reilly, Olberman and Beck.
I suppose that there is the influence they can have on the rest of media. The O'Reilly and Beck and Fox News have successfully incubated stories that later passed in to NBC, and ABC and local news and news papers. These have much greater viewership and could have some impact on public opinion. I don't think Maddow or Olberman have been successful doing that as of yet. So, some one needs to watch so we know where this stuff is coming from. (But that's what media matters is for.)
When each of these shows spends so much time rebutting the other Maddow takes down the right O'Reilly (tries) to take down Maddow. And on and on, some of the time it starts to feel like a WFF for politics. The body slams look real enough and they are satisfying to watch: but really who cares what these people think of each other? I just don't ever want to forget that these shows are "news entertainment" -- they do not reflect what average Americans think of feel. They can be fun to watch, but do they have any impact on the political discourse beyond drumming up hype and controversy?
I just want to try to stay aware-- and not start treating this like it is the real heart of the debate about American politics. The real debate is next to water cooler in forwarded emails, at family reunions, during happy hour and between children and their parents, husband and wives, you and that one idiot cousin. It is dangerously easy to become a member of a faction. A Beckeeteer on the Mickey Beck show. A loyal guardsman of the Amazons of Maddow. Maybe it's fun too but it not real politics.
