The answer as to why the politics of outrage is rampant must include what now passes for media reporting.

Recall that newsrooms have slashed their reporting budgets. Other than the seven figure salaries of the talking heads in front of the camera, virtually all of the rest of the staff are gone. So what are our networks (cable and over the air) to do?

In terms of news, they now read wire copy. Almost every report of “news” is lead of with, “The Los Angeles Times reported today….”. Meaning the Talking head is essentially reading the newspaper to us over the air. Networks now no longer do any of their own reporting, instead using AP or whatever newspaper is available on line.

For political reporting, where the Woodward’s or Jack Anderson’s once toiled, the newscasts now present “representatives’ to do the talking for them. Since these individuals (one from the Left and one from the Right, unless you are FoxNews, in which case it is one from the Right and one from the Far-Right)) do not have to be paid to be there, all it costs the networks for fifteen minutes of air time is a makeup artist, a prop desk and camera operator (all off-camera and all making the industry minimum).

That is cheap broadcasting. The fact that the networks do no fact checking just means “the viewer can decide what to believe”. If one political operative wants to declare that the Moon is made of Green Cheese then that is up to the viewer.

And outrage makes for good ratings, so whoever can manufacture the best outrage and get the most viewers, whether it be Ann Coulter calling for someone’s death or the Obama’s in “Terrorist Fist Bumps”, is the winner. As long as the voting flock tunes in that is all that matters.

“Informing the electorate” died a long time ago.

The American Right is already receiving dividends from the New Yorker cover.

http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=96&pollShowResults=1

John McCain's "Base" comes through for him again.

Re : "Imagine a shy little hand going up."

Except that is it not a "shy little hand".

It is a room full of angry, freightened voters. All of whom have read the "Madrassa Training School" e-mails.

And who thought John Kerry "really did look French" in 2004.

This is how Conservatives seize and hold power.

And Liberals are told, "We're only kidding. Can't you take a joke" when we disagree.

I'm tired of "taking it", just to be a "good guy". That is how Harry Reid was emasculated in the US Senate.

If the US media want to continue their role as "John McCain's Base", let them. But I, for one, am not going to sit back and let the freighteners have their way without saying something any more.

Too bad if you want to declare I "have no sense of humor". I lost it when George W. Bush got all those yucks pretending to search his desk for WMD's when there were none in Iraq. Or was I supposed to keep smiling through all those dead Americans and Iraqis over that one as well?

Re: "Ohhh my god, Obama is going to destroy McCain, on live television."

During the debate that is correct. However afterward, all the networks will do is clip out sound bites and play them, over and over. Just as they did for George w. Bush.

When those sound bites are judiciously played by McCain's "Base", he will appear much more favorably to the public.

Phil Gramm has certainly put Conservatives in an awkward position. By explicitly enunciating the Ayn Rand philosophy (the rich deserve to be rich and those without wealth are lesser human being and deserve to be that way), he has exposed the true nature of modern Conservatism.

Now, however, because Conservatives must defend their own, they cannot denounces what he said (John McCain was allowed one denial, but he still has to keep Mr. Gramm on his advisors list because in a McCain Administration, Phil Gramm will be setting policy.

So Conservatives have to find a way to distract the conversation somehow before Americans actually assimilate what the truly believe and what they truly want for the United States (which is exactly what George W. Bush has been delivering for seven years, in fact). I expect another round of Rev. Wright broadcasts on FoxNews and more Barak Obama is a Muslim e-mails in the near future.

Re: "Real Americans don't earn money. They inherit it. It isn't Phil's fault that the average citizen didn't pick wealthy parents."

Actually, Mr. Gramm gained his wealth via the second best (from a Republican point of view) method.

His wife, Wendy, made millions while she was on the board of directors of Enron while her husband was in the Senate enabling the abuses that Enron was using to "make" that money. She got her money out before the collapse.

As a side point, George W. Bush made his money via the first two methods (inheriting the Bush fortune and making millions off of the Texas Rangers after the State of Texas paid for extensive improvements to their stadium that vastly increased the value of the team), plus he will add the wealth that comes from being an ex-President. Another Trifecta for George.

I have never noticed that the Republican Party has ever had a problem in selling simultaneously contradictory concepts to the American People.

Such messages as:

There were no WMD's in Iraq

and

We have found the WMD's in Iraq

Are even now being bandied about on FoxNews and other Republican outlets.

As long as we have a somnamulent media reporting corps, no one will ever put forth on a national broadcast that "this does not make sense". Our talking heads will just repeat one line on Monday as though it were Gospel Truth, then the polar opposite line on Tuesday as though it were sent down from Moses