commercial democracy?

commercial democracy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

philosophy -> commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 3:34:28 PM)
It's been mentioned in another thread, but there's a specific facet i'd like to explore. Sarah Palin, it is reported today, is joining the Fox Network as a pundit. Now, there were many who predicted something along these lines when she prematurely stepped down as Governor of Alaska. The question i'd like to ask is, has she actually made a smart move in terms of effecting political change? In other words is the media now more important to the political landscape than actual politicians? If so, what does that mean for democracy? If a commercial media outlet (of any stripe) is more effective than an elected official, how does that reflect the will of the people as opposed to the will of the market?

kittinSol -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 3:38:58 PM)
She'll be preachin to the choir and makin an honest livin.

Vendaval -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 3:49:33 PM)
Everything is for sale here, haven't you heard?

vincentML -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 3:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy It's been mentioned in another thread, but there's a specific facet i'd like to explore. Sarah Palin, it is reported today, is joining the Fox Network as a pundit. Now, there were many who predicted something along these lines when she prematurely stepped down as Governor of Alaska. The question i'd like to ask is, has she actually made a smart move in terms of effecting political change? In other words is the media now more important to the political landscape than actual politicians? If so, what does that mean for democracy? If a commercial media outlet (of any stripe) is more effective than an elected official, how does that reflect the will of the people as opposed to the will of the market? As kitten said, and as you may know people mostly listen to commentators who reflect and reinforce their own opinions. Some from the left may listen from curiosity and I suspect she will be attacked for her lack of knowledge by such as Keith Obermann, as she was last night by McCain's campaign manager. For the moment her brand is pretty solid and her base is very strong. Hopefully, she will learn in time how there came to be two Koreas. She was accused of having no idea. It will be interesting to see how effective a launching pad it will be for any future candidacy, if she even has such plans.

philosophy -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 4:34:18 PM)
Well, i don't necessarily disagree with what you've said about Mrs Palin, but it wasn't what i was driving at in the op. What i'm interested in, is the question whether or not media figures have more influence over the political landscape than actual elected individuals. If so, does this mean that elections are less important than media appointments?

vincentML -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 4:57:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Well, i don't necessarily disagree with what you've said about Mrs Palin, but it wasn't what i was driving at in the op. What i'm interested in, is the question whether or not media figures have more influence over the political landscape than actual elected individuals. If so, does this mean that elections are less important than media appointments? That is really a difficult question to answer because the political landscape is ever changing, so the answer may depend on the opportunistic moment. What's hot? And how confused are we? There have been a few times where Media figures have been able to motivate their listeners to action, i.e. write letters, make phone calls, show up at rallies. Such motivations however do not seem to have legs as they say. The current Tea Party assemblies are an example. They are unlikely imo to amount to much of significance in the long run, although there is talk of forming a grass roots political party. On the other hand, politicians do not really have a lot of access to media face time so their individual impact may be minimal. There are 535 members of Congress vying for media attention on the National scene in the USA. Easy for the single member to get lost in the crowd. Mainly, only the President has the bully pulpit in our system and he is never questioned too vigorously as in the British House where the PM has to answer directly. Ultimately, we are stuck with the Pols because they are the ones who cast the votes on legislation. As for the commentators having influence.... the dogs howl but the caravan moves on.

pahunkboy -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:02:58 PM)
I doubt she is interested in politics. Not really.

rulemylife -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:20:36 PM)
What I find interesting is that so many former Republican officeholders wind up on Fox News in an apparent effort to resurrect their political careers. Fox, the "fair and balanced" network.

Musicmystery -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The question [is] whether ... media figures have more influence over the political landscape than actual elected individuals. Since the news has been eliminated in favor of commentary, and commentary has left analysis for opinion, media figures, who need not worry about election, just generating funds, can afford to say all kinds of cool bullshit, even on purpose. People prefer cool sound bites to cool reason.

Silence8 -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The question [is] whether ... media figures have more influence over the political landscape than actual elected individuals. Since the news has been eliminated in favor of commentary, and commentary has left analysis for opinion, media figures, who need not worry about election, just generating funds, can afford to say all kinds of cool bullshit, even on purpose. People prefer cool sound bites to cool reason. Yeah, but the internet presently provides more substantive news than, I think, the newspapers have since the 19th century death of independent newspapers. Any word on whether TV news in general has been losing ratings? (relative to newspapers?) TV is already a living dead. Let's protect the internet from its vampire fangs.

MichiganHeadmast -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:38:08 PM)
I don't know. George Steppanopolous (sp?) seems to be making a good living posing as an independent reporter.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Well, i don't necessarily disagree with what you've said about Mrs Palin, but it wasn't what i was driving at in the op. What i'm interested in, is the question whether or not media figures have more influence over the political landscape than actual elected individuals. If so, does this mean that elections are less important than media appointments? They're both important parts of the same strategy. The elected officials pass the laws and implement the policies by which we all live, but the media play the key role in determining who becomes elected.

AnimusRex -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 5:49:23 PM)
Good question- I do sometimes feel pessimistic that vacuous blowhards have replaced news; on the other hand, we have been here before. What we think of as objective, nonpartisan news is really a recent phenomenon- until at least WWII, most newspapers were rabidly partisan, and made no pretense about their bias. There is that famous anecdote about Wm. Randolph Hearst creating the Spanish-American War. That fact that we have been here before doesn't mean we should shrug it off, however. There is a loss of representative democracy when we lose the notion of a nonpartisan reality that we can all agree on.

servantforuse -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 6:01:14 PM)
The press also hated Ronald Reagan and he was still able to get his message out there and was elected in landslides in both elections. A Republican candidate could be elected in 2012 despite a left leaning media. The right (no pun intended) candidate could knock off Obama.

THELADY -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 6:34:04 PM)
silence, tv is not dead, but several news medias are!! yes the Ratings for the networks and ccn cnbc are way down. the ratings for fox how ever are up quite a bit. The highest rated news channel show is Bill O' Riley and has been for several recent years. I have been shocked at how the networks and cnn ignored so many questionable things about Obama,,,,,, ooops another thread!! Obama's cyber czar or internet czar,,,,what ever the name is, I lost track after 9 or 10 czars,,,,,,believes the government should have control of the internet, just in case an emergency came up. The czar also hailed Chavez for taking over the media down there in Ven. and commented " look what he was able to accomplish!! "(not an exact quote) All the czar and the govt has to do to take control is to do it as quietly as possible, and no one is the wiser. The media says it on the networks 2 or 3 times and there are so few tuned in, and of those most just shake their head and hope someone up there has the sense to stop it....then goes about their business. They care but do nothing. The few that care and speak up are not enough alone to stop it. and when they try the progressives debase them.....now that the news media reports with a vengeance! you can depend on that! The exceptional thing about America is The people, People speaking up and letting the govt know where they stand. This country was started by people willing to stand up and die for freedom. The people did it 2 years ago when the progressives wanted imunity and citizenshp for all aliens in America. Enough people spoke up and stopped it. It can be done and done peacefully, thats the way the founding fathers set it up. Its up to us to protect the internet and everything else.

kittinSol -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 6:58:53 PM)
Oh yawn.

thornhappy -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 7:22:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: THELADY The people did it 2 years ago when the progressives wanted imunity and citizenshp for all aliens in America. Enough people spoke up and stopped it. Your most recent journal posting is a hoax, btw.

subtee -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 7:24:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thornhappy quote: ORIGINAL: THELADY The people did it 2 years ago when the progressives wanted imunity and citizenshp for all aliens in America. Enough people spoke up and stopped it. Your most recent journal posting is a hoax, btw. Those progressives commercials are far too ubiquitous. Probably a hoax, too. Enough with Flo!

kittinSol -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 7:31:03 PM)
Hell, progressives are a hoax! Goddam good fur nuffin' lazy bleedin heart immigrant-luvin b&(%^*.

Brain -> RE: commercial democracy? (1/11/2010 7:37:05 PM)
I don't think she's a good example. I don't think she has a political future. She was never qualified and John McCain chose her only because she brought religious votes. Other than people overpaying to listen to her speak and her making some money on Fox news telling lies about death panels and other lies she intends to manufacture in the future on other issues, to use an accounting expression she is a write off. To answer your question, the media is not more important than elected politicians because if it was John McCain would be president. If the commercial media is more effective than an elected official the will of the market prevails. But that is not true, especially now with the Internet. Now if you mean by the will of the market Wall Street, then I would say we have government by Wall Street, or, government by Goldman Sachs.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125