- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The problem here is, I think, that abstractions play, not only because people (and more to the point, the TV news) can swallow them whole and easy, but because we have such intrenched interests that any substantive proposal for action is bound to get some organized group with a bullhorn pissed off. Once you piss a few of the right groups off you become "divisive" and "controversial," and thereby unelectable. So politicians stick to making vague pronouncements that people want to hear. What the media want above all things is for everyone to play by the rules as the media percieve them (in which Republicans are assumed to be nasty and aggressive, so when they talk trash it doesn't ruffle feathers, but when a Democrat does they are pissing in the finger bowl). Stick to conventional wisdom, don't say anything (like Nader or Chomsky) that needs to be explained, flatter the customers/voters/rubes and remember, it's all a (lucrative)game.
