So, while you might have personal opinions about infidelity or the sanctity of marriage, it is very difficult to argue that this scandal does little but distract and divide people.
That it arises at a time when there is bipartisan and grass roots support for exiting Libya, against the patriot act, and in general, against the "powers that be" security and corporate state is no coincidence. Issues like this serve to remind the public which side of the fence they are on and why they shouldn't get along with the other guy (who might be just as concerned about individual rights, but supports the guy with the cock shot on his facebook)
By constantly playing up scandal, or contentious issues, like abortion and gun laws that have no chance of passing in the first place, the political elite can prevent any real challenge to their power, and the corporate media establishment never has to ask "the hand that feeds them" serious questions about serious issues.
Again, you are allowed your own opinions of Weiner and his marriage, a relationship you know nothing about, but to pretend that this is an issue of any political relevance is nonsense. Yet, it is exactly this type of nonsense that the mainstream media and political establishment want you to be concerned with, because it further entrenches their interests; the political elite rule with no question and the media feels no pressure to ask those questions.
Another politician caught being a pervert. Wonderful. Wooopeeee. Ha ha, More. More. More.
WTF ever.
Actually inimalist, you make a very good point about the distraction thing. People would rather gobble up shit like this than have to deal with what really matters.
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
Last edited by Archaeopteryx on Jun 7th, 2011 at 06:54 PM
just to be clear, this last issue is the point of this thread, not the discussion of people's private sex lives
I, for one, couldn't care less about someone texting pictures of their penis to someone else, especially if they are consensual adults. This is behaviour we all partake in, and is hardly "perverted"
I understand what you are saying, I just... I'm not even sure I think there is something to "support" here, you know? like what, I support the rights of adults to have private lives?
well, if that is the case, it raises a pretty fundamental question about journalism: is the role of the media to provide people with the gossip stories that might titillate them? or are they supposed to provide a more fundamental service to society?
deliberate or not, this type of "news" doesn't do much to unite people around issues that actually matter, or to provoke/inform the public about the political landscape
Well, most news on TV is gossip news. I don't think it is supposed to take the place of actual political news. in the new york times, this had 1 front page article... but all the others were high interest to me. I don't think it is distracting anyone, anyone who is actually interested in politics will slide past while people who only care about celebrities will have something a little different for once.
I think that the situation was aggravated because his name is Weiner. It just seemed like too great of a story to pass up.
unfortunately, these "people who are actually interested in politics" make up a small minority of the voting public, if you are defining people who are interested in politics as those who aren't interested in these types of scandals.
to the rest of the "uninformed rabble", who may have similar concerns about medicare reform, or foreign wars, this is a distraction. imho its the same reason we saw a flurry of abortion bills, with no chance of passing, introduced in various states at the same time bipartisan support against the banks and tax cuts on for the rich started to swell at a grass roots level. As soon as people start to bridge partisan lines to challenge the elite, fluff issues come up and the media is more than happy to oblige.
Are you saying that he had an affair, because politics were getting tense for the elite? I think this would have gotten big media play, regardless of when it occured.
in this case, it is more that the media is more interested in presenting these types of fluff stories, because it excites people with the taboo of... consensual adult sexual activity... but even more so because they can now get ratings without ever having to ask real questions to the politicians (which is generally not good for their careers).
For instance, I'm sure Weiner is happier answering no brainer questions about his sex life than digging questions about his relationship with AIPAC and the Israeli lobby.
I don't think the media is responsible for anything really, it merely just does what is easiest, and the "left/right", scandal based reporting of trivial details of people's lives is far easier than burning their political capital trying to do real investigative reporting, and in the end, probably gets better ratings.
The elite are just happy to play along because it serves their purposes. During this whole affair, the only person I heard say (outside of the John Stewarts and Glenn Greenwalds) "lets talk about something serious" was Weiner himself. Everyone else gladly played along, because its better than the GOP or democratic leaders having to answer what were calls to end the war in Libya from within their own parties, or to take a serious look at medicare reform in line with what the American people want, rather than corporate interests (which look like they will win out again, as Obama has said entitlements will be on the table for budget negotiations).
I'm not accusing people of manufacturing the news, I'm accusing them of making the least-important-but-most-divisive stories with the simplest narratives headlines, which tacitly supports the political establishment of both parties, because such stories and continuous scandals keep any pressure off, say, the fact that the democratic party, who 5 years ago pretended to care about civil liberties, just extended the very patriot act they, 5 years ago, rallied against.
for sure, but like, the "profit motive" is probably not the model we should be encouraging for the thing that is supposed to inform the public about politics and act as a balance against the "powers that be".
Well that's what necessarily is, since media is delivered by private companies. Likewise, state sponsored television also has its strengths and weaknesses. I like independent journalists but often the quality is not as high.
a media outlet doesn't need to be driven by the profit motive to be successful, imho. you just need people who love the idea of being "newsmen". and regardless, we need a media that doesn't just pander to the same low brow sensibilities that sitcoms do, profitable or not.
tbh, it's more a matter of journalists being unwilling to engage the politicians about serious issues more than people not wanting to know. I genuinely believe that real discussion about real issues would attract ratings, just the anchors don't want to be ostracized from the Washington "club", so they pitch soft ones to their guests.
hell, the prime example is the daily show or Colbert, but even shows like Conan do political stuff, and TYT is apparently huge in terms of internet news. or of course, AJE. I don't think it is a matter of money at all, but like some kind of nearly inscestous pseudo-cronyism.
sure, nothing is perfect, TYT has lots of problems, like Cenk being too full of himself. in their defense, TYT has always had a mix of real and pop news, but point taken, they might not have been the best example.
greenwald did the story on weiner above, AJE has their biases, Stewart is a comedy program, etc. those were more examples of news agencies that are able to be successful without pandering to scandal and other "non news" issues
like I pointed out above, there are ways to do it even in the current system, so long as the people running the news program/channel are interested in producing good media, rather than competing for ratings or being afraid to go after politicians