So I was going through The Huffington Post just now and I ran into a post by Peter Mehlman. If you do not recognize the name, he was one of the head writers for Seinfeld. Due to a couple degrees of separation, he got me on as an extra for a show he created (not Seinfeld) a few years back. He is a great comedy writer, but when it comes to analyzing the media, his message is rather depressing.
The gist of it is that in today's media, there are so many outlets for people to choose to get their news from, whether you are liberal or conservative. Because of that, he sees the Information Age is more like "it's the blather-ation age." Well I am glad you notice that Peter, the Information Age does allow many people to express their viewpoints and yes, other people can choose to read whichever they deem fit.
Mehlman highlights the works of Maureen Dowd and Bill Maher on the left and David Broder on the right, showing that as talented as these people are the only thing being accomplished is preaching to the choir. What Peter is missing here is that even though politics is extremely divisive, the world is not wholly black and white. There are (gasp) independents out there that hate both choirs and are looking for a middle ground. In fact, there are more and more Independents being registered all the time.
The most depressing part of his post was the end:
Preaching to the choir is a deadening experience.
Then again, preaching to the heathens isn't much better. On the right, a respected conservative columnist like David Brooks in the New York Times sounds more and more desperate in his attempts to gently get liberals to think another way. Ask a Maureen Dowd fan if he or she read David Brooks today and you get this put upon reaction of, "I started reading but by the third paragraph, I just couldn't stand it anymore."
Instead, we spend our lives preparing for an argument we'll never have with a person we'll never meet whose opinions we could never change.
Now I find this insulting to people that are actively engaged in politics, even if they only want to know what is going on in the world. What Peter seems to be inferring is that with all the sources of information out there, why should we even bother following the news if we can't get through to the other side?
Well if I remember correctly, it is an engaged citizenry that strengthens a democracy. Sure, not everyone is going to follow the news as meticulously as others, but that is perfectly fine. Nevertheless, people's minds do actually change, the Congress, the Presidency and all the elected offices below that do change hands based on how the public feels their leaders are doing. It is how a democracy works (even if ours has been walloped in the head over and over by the neo-cons in the last few years) and we should continue to strive for a better nation that serves its people.
|