What I've observed is that moderates and nonpartisan members of congress get much less media coverage while they are truly the ones "going about the business of running the country."
The evening news ISN'T going to report that a man returned home from work last evening, ate dinner, helped his kids with homework, watched television, and then went to bed. They are going to focus on the few people that are found with a baker's dozen of severed heads in the freezer. Likewise, fringe elements of both political parties are getting the media coverage because people want to see a fight. Just like in grade school, a fist-fight breaks out, and everyone goes crazy trying to check out the action.
Personally, I like the diversity in both parties. It certainly makes for interesting debate. Too bad we can't more voters to the booths during election time.
This doesn't bode well, but I agree with you Tim. I find the disaffected conservatives' tendency to threaten, "I'm staying home on Election Day" just as disturbing as the liberal tendency to demonize dissenters. Both are short-sighted self-serving strategies that ultimately damage the long-term goals of the parties and individuals involved.
"Too bad we can't more voters to the booths during election time."
I've always looked at low voter turnout as a vote of confidence of the country. If people are really upset, they vote. But many people are just trying to get ahead and voting doesn't seem to make a difference to them in that arena.
This is why I like my Democratic Congressman, Dennis Moore. His district is mostly Republican, and Congressman Moore, therefore, moderates his rhetoric to match. He is still clearly a Democrat, though, and he still tends to disagree with me on most of the issues, so, even though I like him I won't vote for him unless we nominate someone awful to run against him.
And so far, we haven't nominated anyone awful, although the first man to run against him was too conservative to win.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Rose:
I haven't read Ezra's piece yet, but I will . . . I promise . . . I usually catch up with his stuff sooner or later. (I think it was Digby who said, "my that boy writes an awful lot." or something like that.
BUT, I think there's a dynamic you've glossed over.
Blue on Blue is kind of a background noise, the usual state of affairs. It has become more "out there" if you will, primarily (I think) due to the effors of MyDD's Jerome and MarKOS pushing the issue. They are, after all, "Crashing The Gates."
GOP defections/dissent (whatever you want to call it) is more newsworthy because it's less ordinary. The GOP is much more disciplined, on-message. Dissent in the ranks is (from my perspective) "man bites dog."
The Dems invite bickering because they have so many smaller single issue groups represented, while the GOP's "God, Guns, and No Gay's" takes on fewer single issue subgroups, yet their subgroups are much larger individually than those affiliated with the Dems (so they can afford to mock smaller demographics like enviromentalists as "wackos", but foolish is the Dem who belittles the NRA).
I know this is a GROSS simplification. I probably should write my own book on this to get it right. But we are talking about the sound-byte addicted media for whom simplistic story-lines are the norm. (Which is why nobody would buy my book anyway.)
Putting on a daily, one hour, single guest interview program is not news. Getting people to watch such a show in numbers Neilson salutes . . . now that would be news.
Can anyone here, all you political junkies out there who actively click links to get here instead of passively pushing the button on your remote to see some entertainment between the TV commercials, can even one of you tell me that you watch C-Span with any true regularity? I'm a true junky for politics, have been for years. That stuff even puts me to sleep unless there is something particularly captivating.
Lament the media all you want for it's lack of substance, bias, and purposeful ignorance. But in the market of ideas, you can only sell what people are buying. Low interest for inside-the-beltway stuff, and more importantly for what's going on inside city hall is not caused by the media, and the insipid media coverage of events does not cause low voter turn-out.
Quite the opposite. Low turn out and fluff passing itself off as news is a reflection of our apathetic desire to be left alone. Ambivalence is destroyed only when there's a good cat-fight. Goodness, can you imagine how boring it is to watch cars turn left all day long? We tune into NASCAR for the wrecks!
One of the most amazing accomplishments in sports is baseball's "perfect game." It is the most stunningly dull thing to experience. No hits, no walks, no errors, no runs . . . no action. How does ESPN show a highlight of that? There's more video of the celebration after the event than actual game footage.
Democrats forming a circular firing squad is just business as usual. A GOPer committing political hari kari -- now that is captivating.
Mark, Thanks for the long and thoughtful post. How to pick things out of it without threadjacking myself?
I think you're saying you agree with me that Dem on Dem is not the big deal that Klein calls it.
Some things that would be boring, if reported every day, would now be interesting to see or read. Such as positive progress in Iraq. I bring this up because you mention the marketplace of ideas. Supply and demand are artificially skewed by the agendas of the various media. The information industry is in need of a shake-out. I believe it is coming, albeit slowly.
Also, have you ever really watched a perfect game? After five innings or so, EVERY pitch, every swing of the bat, every outfielder drifting under a long pop fly is grueling suspense where even the fans of the opposing team begin to root for the pitcher.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Michael A.
My Great Grandfather (Leon Ames) I believe is the only major league pitcher to lose a no-hitter. (You have to click the link to find out how.) And, yes. If you're a true baseball fan, you indeed are gripped by the performance. But it's the sports equivalent of an episode of Seinfeld. Highly entertaining, but we're still watching something about nothing.
I think you missed my theme about the media. The media won't shake out unles there is a demand for it. And once a demand is discovered, it'll be an avalanche.
Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
Doh! Hi Mike!
I just realized that you posted this thread and not Rose. I didn't catch Rose's welcome to ya. (So, Welcome to Ya!)
I plead guilty to zeroing in via RSS -- like you describe in your other post.
I can almost always tell if Rose or Tim post just by their take on the subject matter, so you took me off guard -- coming across so damn reasonable. ;^)
The evening news ISN'T going to report that a man returned home from work last evening, ate dinner, helped his kids with homework, watched television, and then went to bed. They are going to focus on the few people that are found with a baker's dozen of severed heads in the freezer. Likewise, fringe elements of both political parties are getting the media coverage because people want to see a fight. Just like in grade school, a fist-fight breaks out, and everyone goes crazy trying to check out the action.
Personally, I like the diversity in both parties. It certainly makes for interesting debate. Too bad we can't more voters to the booths during election time.
I've always looked at low voter turnout as a vote of confidence of the country. If people are really upset, they vote. But many people are just trying to get ahead and voting doesn't seem to make a difference to them in that arena.
This is why I like my Democratic Congressman, Dennis Moore. His district is mostly Republican, and Congressman Moore, therefore, moderates his rhetoric to match. He is still clearly a Democrat, though, and he still tends to disagree with me on most of the issues, so, even though I like him I won't vote for him unless we nominate someone awful to run against him.
And so far, we haven't nominated anyone awful, although the first man to run against him was too conservative to win.
I, myself, am probably too conservative to win.
Yours,
Wince
I haven't read Ezra's piece yet, but I will . . . I promise . . . I usually catch up with his stuff sooner or later. (I think it was Digby who said, "my that boy writes an awful lot." or something like that.
BUT, I think there's a dynamic you've glossed over.
Blue on Blue is kind of a background noise, the usual state of affairs. It has become more "out there" if you will, primarily (I think) due to the effors of MyDD's Jerome and MarKOS pushing the issue. They are, after all, "Crashing The Gates."
GOP defections/dissent (whatever you want to call it) is more newsworthy because it's less ordinary. The GOP is much more disciplined, on-message. Dissent in the ranks is (from my perspective) "man bites dog."
The Dems invite bickering because they have so many smaller single issue groups represented, while the GOP's "God, Guns, and No Gay's" takes on fewer single issue subgroups, yet their subgroups are much larger individually than those affiliated with the Dems (so they can afford to mock smaller demographics like enviromentalists as "wackos", but foolish is the Dem who belittles the NRA).
I know this is a GROSS simplification. I probably should write my own book on this to get it right. But we are talking about the sound-byte addicted media for whom simplistic story-lines are the norm. (Which is why nobody would buy my book anyway.)
Putting on a daily, one hour, single guest interview program is not news. Getting people to watch such a show in numbers Neilson salutes . . . now that would be news.
Can anyone here, all you political junkies out there who actively click links to get here instead of passively pushing the button on your remote to see some entertainment between the TV commercials, can even one of you tell me that you watch C-Span with any true regularity? I'm a true junky for politics, have been for years. That stuff even puts me to sleep unless there is something particularly captivating.
Lament the media all you want for it's lack of substance, bias, and purposeful ignorance. But in the market of ideas, you can only sell what people are buying. Low interest for inside-the-beltway stuff, and more importantly for what's going on inside city hall is not caused by the media, and the insipid media coverage of events does not cause low voter turn-out.
Quite the opposite. Low turn out and fluff passing itself off as news is a reflection of our apathetic desire to be left alone. Ambivalence is destroyed only when there's a good cat-fight. Goodness, can you imagine how boring it is to watch cars turn left all day long? We tune into NASCAR for the wrecks!
One of the most amazing accomplishments in sports is baseball's "perfect game." It is the most stunningly dull thing to experience. No hits, no walks, no errors, no runs . . . no action. How does ESPN show a highlight of that? There's more video of the celebration after the event than actual game footage.
Democrats forming a circular firing squad is just business as usual. A GOPer committing political hari kari -- now that is captivating.
I think you're saying you agree with me that Dem on Dem is not the big deal that Klein calls it.
Some things that would be boring, if reported every day, would now be interesting to see or read. Such as positive progress in Iraq. I bring this up because you mention the marketplace of ideas. Supply and demand are artificially skewed by the agendas of the various media. The information industry is in need of a shake-out. I believe it is coming, albeit slowly.
Also, have you ever really watched a perfect game? After five innings or so, EVERY pitch, every swing of the bat, every outfielder drifting under a long pop fly is grueling suspense where even the fans of the opposing team begin to root for the pitcher.
My Great Grandfather (Leon Ames) I believe is the only major league pitcher to lose a no-hitter. (You have to click the link to find out how.) And, yes. If you're a true baseball fan, you indeed are gripped by the performance. But it's the sports equivalent of an episode of Seinfeld. Highly entertaining, but we're still watching something about nothing.
I think you missed my theme about the media. The media won't shake out unles there is a demand for it. And once a demand is discovered, it'll be an avalanche.
I just realized that you posted this thread and not Rose. I didn't catch Rose's welcome to ya. (So, Welcome to Ya!)
I plead guilty to zeroing in via RSS -- like you describe in your other post.
I can almost always tell if Rose or Tim post just by their take on the subject matter, so you took me off guard -- coming across so damn reasonable. ;^)
And I still need to get around to Ezra's essay.
Nice post! Shall we call you Kalamity Adams?
Yours,
Wince