I think most of us would agree with your factual account here, but there are also values laden in your description, eg that media is exploiting our insecurities. Who determines when my choices are a result of rational calculation vs getting my insecurities exploited? Some may say that socialist theories are not what you want but are instead exploiting your insecurities. @exiledgator may give us a small opening here introducing that some people will admit that they don’t always condone their own behavior. Here, we can maybe diagnose a frailty in an individual without devaluing their agency. However, even if both he and I express that we shouldn’t visit this website as much as we do, nowhere embedded in this sentiment is that others shouldn’t be able to visit it. Even if we did believe that communist theories poison minds, we can’t be running around like crazed McCarthyites making it illegal to discuss those ideas, because who are we to decide what is poisonous to someone else.
This leads me down the road of thinking if we are going to be exploited in order to move us to do something, perhaps it should be for something worthwhile to believe in instead of buying things to make a few people very rich (and on top of that, letting them more or less control the country, economy and how we live). Sign me up to be exploited to achieve universal health care and eliminate poverty, seems better than making it so a few people can own multiple yachts and private aircraft.
Aside from the unsupported generalization that 'people' are addicted to outrage (most, some, all?) and the subsequent questionable assertion that, by proxy, they are addicted to effects of outrage, the conclusion that it drives the identity of all media is suspect. Some people are addicted to meth and therefore gum disease and tooth loss. That's why the drug industry is what it is.
The problem with the media is they don’t report the news but are more interested in finding the food fight. When they do interviews they rarely look for the average person, but find the most unhappy nut job on the far left or far right they can find. This gives the impression the country is more divided than it actually is.
What should our expectations be? Most peoples are pretty low, for good reason. Literally everyone complains about it, no matter your orientation.
Looks like offering news coverage rather than selling outrage to me The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos
Lost someone to Fox News? Science says they may be addicted to anger - The Boston Globe I don't think the idea of people being addicted to outrage is a new concept, and folks have attempted to explain the science of it. At minimum, it rises above the level of "unsupported generalization." Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Man vs. Mouse: Ron DeSantis Finds Taking On Disney Is a Dicey Business Major G.O.P. Donor’s Commitment to DeSantis Is Murkier Than Thought DeSantis Faces Republican Scrutiny on Issues While Trump Skates By Looks like they're trying to get you to draw a conclusion before you even read the article. And that's without even getting into Opinion pieces.
The country is, in fact, divided. Having said that, and maybe it goes without saying, the people who seem the most extreme or the most angry are political junkies and spend a lot of time online, particularly on social media. It's not just the content out there; it's the volume of it as well as the amount of time people spend consuming it. It always amazes me when I meet people who don't follow the news and aren't political, but that's because I'm a news junkie. Ultimately, there's plenty of blame to go around for the level of division. The media care about money, and people want to have their views reinforced. If we demanded more objective reporting, we'd probably see more of it.
I don't think that's true. Trash is easy to produce, quality journalism isnt. There is a basic economic barrier to this in capitalism. People want better healthcare in this country too, and you can get it, it just costs an insane amount of money, so people opt for other remedies or none at all. Same goes for news. Do people watch local news becuase thats what they want or because it doesnt cost anything and its on?
I don’t think this gets us very far because many believe that capitalism is our best path toward these ends. You might suggest that they have been brainwashed into this view, but of course this just brings us right back to the beginning.
So what are we complaining about then? We are simply being exploited to achieve our best path forward according to many, so I guess we can all calm down and get back to work, we have manufactured consent. If capitalism is our best path forward, capitalist media is functioning as it should in that it consistently reinforces that ideology and operates under its logic.
I'm aware of anger/outrage addiction. I'm asserting that claiming 'people' are addicted to outrage without quantifying language is a gross generalization. Since it is the foundational fact of the rest of his comment, I find it suspect. Surely addiction to outrage is not a defining trait of all Americans. Do you think it is? Here is a test. Since I assert that outrage addiction is a small minority condition, let's change the meaning of 'people' to us "normies": "People are not addicted to outrage and therefore not polarization, that's why the media is what it is."
They watch cable news because they want to be entertained by bumper stickers, yelling, and conflict. Presenting a nuanced and fair take on the news is boring, even if it's like ten times closer to the truth. There's an old saying, "never let facts get in the way of a good story." Most people, even if they don't know it, don't watch the news for "facts," they watch the news for a "good story."
It's all a moot point, this isn't going away anytime soon because division stokes more division. It's a self-feeding fire. I hate to sound so cynical, but it feels like we're complaining about something that just isn't going to change. We just need to be aware of it.
Honestly we should all be much more concerned with local news and politics. It’s more impactful to our daily existence most just ignore it.
I think people are complaining because they perceive a poor product and believe that they have the ability to improve it. The problem is of course that different people will identity different problems, and each will assume the other is the one whose mind was exploited. As a result, if we are to improve the system, we must grant intellectual authority to one of these parties over the others, because if we wanted a decentralized system that allowed everyone to have a say, we would likely end up with a system much like the one that is already in place.
I gave up completely on “the media” during COVID and the “Peaceful Protests. Will go back occasionally if there is something big like an election night. Haven’t missed them a bit. Been getting all of my information since from Barron’s and IBD. It is amazing how ridiculous CNN and Fox look after you have walked away from them for a few months.
We can likely agree that's somewhere between "all" and "none," not sure there's utility in quantifying it at all without having a relevant source to justify a given quantity. Instead of deciding between "most" and "few," it might be more accurate to recognize that those most outspoken about their outrage are more likely to fit the bill. I don't think it matters whether or not it's a defining trait of all Americans because we all seem to be subject to the targeting of such individuals. It's one of the reasons I found Rade's question interesting when he asked: Who determines when my choices are a result of rational calculation vs getting my insecurities exploited? I don't think that is an actual determination that is being made. It's not that its *his* insecurities being exploited, it's that the exploitation will reach some number of people that will be profitable in a way that is determined to be financially advantageous in comparison to trying to reach those making the rational calculations. I suspect that the differences are mostly semantic in nature. Each media *type* (as in type of lean) as its target audience. Some are going to catered to those who calculate; some are going to cater to those who seek outrage. What seems to be observable is that the ones who cater to the outrage group seem to rise to the top of discussions much more than the ones that don't. You take 10 random people, and ask them to "name a biased media source." Then take another 10 random people, and ask them to "name an unbiased media source." My guess is the first group would name theirs quicker and yield a more agreeable set than the second group. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
