No, we fucking well do not want. That's what you decided we wanted, and no matter how often we tell you otherwise, you choose not to listen, you ignorant, pompous fools.
Paul Waldman has your number:
Reporters will choose to write about flag pins. They will choose to write about whether some catastrophic, heretofore hidden character flaw has been revealed by a comment a candidate made, or by a comment somebody who knows the candidate made. They are not merely onduits for the campaign’s discourse, they create the campaign’s discourse, as much as the candidates themselves.
I think there are a lot of reasons for the breakdown in American intelligence and ability to handle pieces of information larger than a soundbite (Religious Right, I'm looking at you. Yes, that is my middle finger shoved up your left nostril). We're busier, we're more distracted, and we're distracted by the newest shiny objects, but you know who's habituated us to bullshit masquerading as news? The fucking media, and their far-right handlers.
Kids who grow up in abusive homes think the abuse is normal. They think that's how everybody acts. People who are fed nothing but pap by the nation's media think pap is all it's about. They don't know there's an alternative. If the media stopped spoon feeding the lowest fucking common denominator, then the other denominators might smarten up a bit. And the denominators have discovered this wonderful thing called the Internet that's given them a window into another life. They're discovering the abuse isn't normal. They're discovering there's things like substantive issues and world opinion. They're hungry for steak. The media keeps feeding them pap.
Just because starving people eat what you give them doesn't mean it's what they actually want, you stupid fucking morons.
Steve Benen over at the Carpetbagger Report gets to the crux of the matter nicely:
To me, there are two key problems with the media’s emphasis on trivia, mini-controversies, and the buzz of the day. The first is emphasis — I know there’s going to be some interest and coverage of some minor flap or another, but on a daily basis, it’s wildly disproportionate. That was one of the jarring things about last week’s debate — not that there were some questions about the various distractions, but that there were 15 questions about the distractions that constituted the entire first half of the event.
The second is that, too often, the media takes trivia and decides it really isn’t trivia at all. Instead of mindless coverage of some inconsequential flap or gaffe, an outlet or media personality will insist that the flap or gaffe deserves to be elevated into a national controversy, worthy of serious and genuine analysis. So, when Obama bowls a 37, it’s not just a punch-line or the subject of good-natured ribbing, it becomes an excuse to scrutinize Obama’s manliness and his ability to connect with small-town voters. If he orders orange juice at a diner, it’s the same thing. Clinton’s laugh drew similar scrutiny, as did the price of Edwards’ haircuts.
It’s not enough to highlight the sideshow; the media wants people to believe the sideshow is a serious issue. That’s the problem.
Sideshows were never meant to be the centerpiece of the circus. That's why they're sideshows, you see. It's time our media realize that. To help them along, I have a not-so-friendly message:
You have a choice in the matter: you can choose to continue your decline from watchdogs of democracy to Fifi the Performing Poodle, or you can consult a good proctologist to have your heads extracted from the right wing's colon. Seems to me the choice should be easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment