Letters to the Editor
FredrickBernanke
Published Letters: 170 Editor's Choice: 8
-
"The Great Unwashed Masses," Regular Folk and Easy Reading
[Read the article: The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is impossible to agrue against Greenwald's proposition that the "establishment" media's coverage of the news, in general, and the presidential primaries, in particular, is woefully inadequate when it comes time to select which subjects get "ink" and which don't.
The usual winners in this selection dynamic are the folksy, the cutesy, the easy-to-cover, the easy-to-understand, the trivial.
Greenwald attributes these results to the fact that, in his opinion, the "establishment" media speak "for" the "Regular Folk", and indeed are themselves "Regular Folk"; they are reporting on what interests them. And since they and their consumers both fall under the "Regular Folk" rubric, voila: the discourses produced by these journalists gain wide circulation.
But Greenwald never bothers with an elucidation of the attributes that qualify one to be labeled "Regular Folk," other than some allusion to them being good bowlers. If he is equating "Regular Folk" to Mencken's "Great Unwashed Masses," Greenwald is obviously in error: the media, though not physicists by any stretch of the imagination, are better-educated, better-read and generally more intelligent and erudite than are members of Mencken's group.
Which are more difficult tasks? Writing a story on Barack's bowling score or writing a story about the intricacies of the plan by the Fed and the administration to avert a worldwide collapse of the financial system? Analizing in detail the 80-something page Torture Memo produced by the Justice Dept. or speculating on what the significance the jacket color Hillary has chosen to wear on a given day is?
When given a choice, human beings opt for the easy way most of the time, particularly in the context of their work-lives. That's what drives the shallow and unimportant reporting that dominates the scene: It's easy as hell to do. (And it's easy to read and understand, which the consumer wants.)
The information consumer who wants different content has millions of other sources availible to him or her now, thanks, obviously, to the Internet. These are the people who will actually read a complex 5000-word article on credit-swaps, subprime mortgage bundles and other derivatives; they are also prepared to do some work merely to access the information.
Mass media consumers want info short, uncomplicated, served on a silver platter, entertaining and EASY. They don't want to be presented with Heidgger's "Being and Time" over breakfast coffee.
-
An Abstract Poll Question with Concrete Answers
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it that so many of the posters found it obvious that the poll reflected not some abstract feeling the respondents had, but rather their concrete views on Barack and Hillary?
Hillary is the first serious female presidential candidate and Barack the first serious African-American one. African-American president=Barack Obama; female president=Hillary Clinton. (And old president would=John McCain, if that abstract question were in some poll.)
The poll results are quantitatively very similar to polling regarding voter preference between the two Dems, another clue Joan.
Hillary will always have her small place in history by what she has already accomplished for all women by being competitive in this race, an absolute miracle given her personal character flaws,--such as repeated bold-faced lying-- her obvious lack of any experience other than being a First Lady for eight years and her inability to inspire others through passionate, believable rhetoric.
Not only can one never imagine her writing the Gettysburg Address, one cannot even imagine her orating it with any passion or conviction either.
The next wave of female candidates will be much better armed to do battle than HRC. They will come as accomplished people in their own right, not as someone who merely basks in the starlight of others.
[On my own blog (just click my name,) I wrote a piece titled: Hillary's Game: Reflecting The Starlight Of Others. It was written in mid-March and maybe some of you might enjoy reading it.]
-
tom payne
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary did what women of her generation had to do, and she did it better than anyone.
She's destined to be remembered as the first and the last of the old-school "liberated" woman. Like all of us, she's subject to historicity: she was born when she was born, and through no fault of her own she had to live her life in that epoch.
We live--thankfully--in a far different epoch today. And it's those women (and previously marginalized men) who will enjoy its fruits.
Barack may be the first, but both marginalized men and all women (all women have been marginalized throughout most of world history) are soon going to find themselves in positions of legitimate contention for the ruling slots in our and maybe even Russia's and China's oligarchies.
-
tom payne...again
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You write good content.
And I sure as hell don't want to sound pedantic, but do yourself and us readers a favor:
Occasionally hit the "enter" key and break that good content into paragraphs, even if the paragraph is one sentence.
The visio-spatial aspect plays a significant role in the readers' willingness to read what is before him or her. Thick, no-break stuff often gets passed over; and your thoughts are worth reading.
So, do us a favor, please, and when in doubt, create a new paragraph.
Please do not take this as criticism, it's meant more in the spirit of a "tip."