The same principle applies, I believe, to all those armchair politicians brimming with suggestions about what should be done in the halls of Congress, in the Oval Office or on the killing fields of whatever country in which we are currently engaged in warfare. You see this most on Facebook, where hobby politicians rant and rave about every little thing Congress does, citing either the Democrats or Republicans as downright know-nothing fools. The latest commotion concerns publishing a photo of dead Osama: They should: the people need proof! They shouldn't: it will inflame the Arab world! Hey--they will or they won't, and either way some people will decry the decision.
Wouldn't it be more useful if those would-be pundits entered politics--or at the very least, journalism-- for real, instead of spewing a steady stream of imaginary fixes concerning each Congressional or Executive decision shared with the public? And no, I don't salt the lettuce.
I've heard both sides of the radio talk show host babble that they know what ailes the world, each one, when push comes to shove, says that they are doing a better public service by doing what they're doing from the sidelines rather than the frontlines. I think it sorta shows a thin skin, if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteOriginal Response (more or less since apparently it went to the big bit bucket in the sky):
ReplyDeleteAndrea, your inner conservative is showing. And not the neo-con part. The old-fashioned "we should go back to the way things were before they changed" part.
For most of our lives pundrity has been the purview of a select few able to gain access to extremely valuable air time or column inches. As with travel arranging, investing, movie reviewing, and so many other facets of our lives, the punditocracy has been disintermediated by technology. So now everyone who wants to can share their opinion and the onus of deciding what is wheat and what is chafe has moved from a small group of editors to the readers at large.
There are some drawbacks that come with this change just as there are some drawbacks that come with cars, microwaves, telephones, and central air conditioning. But the drawbacks are not such as to warrant rolling back the change. In fact, no change can ever be made to not have happened. It can be changed more, but time only goes forward.
The new ability of everybody to be their own pundit doesn't represent a problem that needs to be solved and doesn't mean that everybody with an opinion should be obligated to switch careers. It just means that if we choose to partake of opinions, the opinion space is a lot more cacophonous than it used to be. Such is life.
BTW, although you MIGHT be able to claim an exemption because at one point in time you DID have access to those valuable column inches in a printed medium, there is a certain irony to complaining about a new way in which multitudes express their opinions from a "blog" which itself only a couple years ago was considered a new way in which multitudes express their opinions. :-)
Keith, you are right about my blog and it's separate wheat from chaff, not chafe. And thanks for catching my own know-nothing error.
ReplyDeleteI believe blogs are little more than online diaries, and they are read by choice. What I dislike is the news stream on Facebook that assaults me when I log on, of folks (yourself included but you are usually brilliant and therefore I enjoy it) railing about who should do what and why they are assholes if they don't. Perhaps if it all were done in a more civilized manner, I would welcome the dialog, but when people like your hateful aunties start with all the cussin' against the "other" side, it's annoying to say the least. And what they hell do they know anyway? And you? We are spoonfed info and Lord knows it's usually only the tip of the iceberg, then all the little people gobble up those crumbs and try to get nourishment from them for weeks. It's stupid.
who on earth salts lettuce?
ReplyDeleteExactly! But I know people who do...actually, just one couple and they are odd.
ReplyDeleteWhat you need is smarter filtering. Back before the like button and the block button on FB there were buttons that said "More from Keith" and "Less from Keith". I think it really did that too. If you said "less" I think you got less without getting zero. It would be nice if you could do the same with topics or subjects or something. You could say "More from Keith, but not about Michelle Bachman."
ReplyDeleteWe probably all (the big all, not just us) need to do a better job of deliberately seeking out opposing viewpoints. With the fragmented mediascape now most people get their information from sources that reinforce their overall worldview. And you know as well as I how uncomfortable it can be listening to the opposition. I mean, you even got Keith Olbermann fired. Listening to the opposition requires effort. It is frustrating and irritating. More like work. Whereas listening to your own side is more pleasant. Less effort. It can be on in the background.
So, yes, I know what you mean about FB. You don't want to block people because you want to know when they twist their ankle or see a cool bird but you can't do that without then being faced with irritating "work". Maybe it will keep getting smarter though.
Keith, you are so right, and to tell the truth, I blocked your aunties long ago but sometimes I still suffer their comments when I see your news. And you are also right about hearing other points of view...it's easier to hear your own side reiterated. BUT, I can listen as long as they don't call me names! Which is why I so welcome your thoughtful comments. :)
ReplyDelete