Election and the media frenzy

[airdvr 210]

Is it getting worse each cycle or is it my imagination?

I think everyone needs to remember that, no matter who gets elected, the world is not going to come to an end. Of course, the media whips it up in an all out knock down dragout. Yes it would be great if the country elects your guy and goes in the direction you wish. But if it doesn't you'll still get up in the morning and do whatever it is you do each day.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[idrankwhat 0]

Campaigns are great sources of income. The media stirs the pot, helping to create controversy, then cashes in. Unfortunately we all end up just a bit dumber for it.

As for your "world won't end" comment, I don't think the world will end because of who we choose as President. But I do think that we're on the verge of a very serious shift in "the world as we know it". With globalization in its many forms, the end of cheap oil, and our strained financial markets, I see a significant paradigm shift on the horizon. The big question is, how do we deal with it? Do we embrace it and thrive or do we grasp for the past and likely get left behind?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Campaigns are great sources of income. The media stirs the pot, helping to create controversy, then cashes in. Unfortunately we all end up just a bit dumber for it.

As for your "world won't end" comment, I don't think the world will end because of who we choose as President. But I do think that we're on the verge of a very serious shift in "the world as we know it". With globalization in its many forms, the end of cheap oil, and our strained financial markets, I see a significant paradigm shift on the horizon. The big question is, how do we deal with it? Do we embrace it and thrive or do we grasp for the past and likely get left behind?

You post has some good points but one thing (maybe as I have to assume some of this) I think is important is why we would get left behind.

I think that could happen because of government, not inspite of government. If we want to be left behind all we need do is let them (the gov) keep the finaincial companies they have taken over, take over health care and on and on. More simply put, the move government control and intervention we suffer under, the better the chance to get "left behind"

Thoughts?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You post has some good points but I one thing (maybe as I have to assume some of this) I think is important is why we would get left behind.

I think that could happen because of government, not inspite of government. If we want to be left behind all we need do is let them (the gov) keep the finaincial companies they have taken over, take over health care and on and on. More simply put, the move government control and intervention we suffer under, the better the chance to get "left behind"

Thoughts?

I don't think our government should "take over" things such as finance, health care or education however I do think that government has a place in oversight and regulation. But, IMO, the only way to do that successfully is to somehow close the industry lobbyist-legislator-lobbyist-legislator revolving door. Our tax dollars tend to go much more towards overhead than to actually getting the job done. We need effective investment in our population's health, education, and next generation technology/infrastructure if we don't want to be left behind. Our government needs to quit letting entrenched interests guide the path. Our leaders need to look at the big picture and direct progress towards long term national success and not be so focused on quarterly balance sheets.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the effect that the 1980's removal of tax incentives on alternative energy development. The technology developed here in the US 20 years ago is now being sold to us by Denmark, Japan and Germany. Thanks to us they have the lead and we're struggling to catch up.

[billvon 3,111]

>Is it getting worse each cycle or is it my imagination?

It's not getting worse; it's been around for centuries, and it's been as bad or worse than it is now. (Google the origin of the word "libel.")

What is changing is our ability to access it. The back-and-forth is speeding up because everything is available to everyone. Heck, people get annoyed if they can't get the text of a speech an hour after it's given; go back 50 years and you'd be lucky to see it in the paper the next day. Go back 150 and you'd have to wait a week for the speech to make it across the country (if it made it at all.)

The media, meanwhile, is becoming more diffuse. Blogs and small news organizations are blending with the mainstream sources, and direct access to source documents lessens the need for the more objective reporting process. Nowdays we have online meta-reporting; reporters reporting on what bloggers are saying and vice versa. Just look at the huge amount of press devoted to the whole "liberal media" issue. (Which, of course, is being reported by the very same media.)

But that stuff has always been available in one form or another. It's just that 30 years ago you had to go to the radical coffee shop to hear it, and now it's at dailykos.com or newsmax.com. So it definitely seems more pervasive.

[Muenkel 0]

Exactly!

The speed of information today seems to be a 2 edged sword. With the growth of so much instant 'news media' and the growth of blogging, it is much easier for the truth to get lost in the crowd. People today must be much more informed or they will get misled very easily.

The quick media allows us to call out bullshit on a politician. It also allows us to quickly get the facts.

Let's hope its the true facts that elect the next president.

_________________________________________
Chris