I thought that piece identified a problem but not its origins. Talk radio, cable news, and social media have all made politics "interesting" for profit by generating outrage, targeted with ever-increasing techical efficiency for a segmented audience. Blaming Hollywood, celebrity PSAs, and MTV completely misses the mark.
I thought that piece identified a problem but not its origins. Talk radio, cable news, and social media have all made politics "interesting" for profit by generating outrage, targeted with ever-increasing techical efficiency for a segmented audience. Blaming Hollywood, celebrity PSAs, and MTV completely misses the mark.
I read it and if you get rid of the first part I think he actually frames our current situation pretty well. I am in my mid 50s and can remember back when politicians were trying not trying to be celebrities and social media stars. Getting things done for the people you represent was a bigger factor than getting likes. I'm still on the fence about what helped Clinton win, being on Arsenio or the little Perot guy. Getting people to vote is a good thing but they also need to learn that there is more than just pulling the lever and that just because they got "their guy" elected things don't magically get better. I really liked one of the descriptions of Masto of Nevada on The Focus Group podcast. She's a work horse not a show horse. I will take representation from someone who gets results over one that is merely looking for attention. When I looked at it from this point of view I found it to be a little more relative how we got here.
That's why I found it so frustrating. He has some excellent points about talk radio, social media, and cable news, but he really didn't want to blame the flamethrowers, so he blamed the 1990s, the last time he remembered outreach to voters he didn't like.
I thought that piece identified a problem but not its origins. Talk radio, cable news, and social media have all made politics "interesting" for profit by generating outrage, targeted with ever-increasing techical efficiency for a segmented audience. Blaming Hollywood, celebrity PSAs, and MTV completely misses the mark.
I read it and if you get rid of the first part I think he actually frames our current situation pretty well. I am in my mid 50s and can remember back when politicians were trying not trying to be celebrities and social media stars. Getting things done for the people you represent was a bigger factor than getting likes. I'm still on the fence about what helped Clinton win, being on Arsenio or the little Perot guy. Getting people to vote is a good thing but they also need to learn that there is more than just pulling the lever and that just because they got "their guy" elected things don't magically get better. I really liked one of the descriptions of Masto of Nevada on The Focus Group podcast. She's a work horse not a show horse. I will take representation from someone who gets results over one that is merely looking for attention. When I looked at it from this point of view I found it to be a little more relative how we got here.
That's why I found it so frustrating. He has some excellent points about talk radio, social media, and cable news, but he really didn't want to blame the flamethrowers, so he blamed the 1990s, the last time he remembered outreach to voters he didn't like.