YearlyKos: To post or not to post…
There were no plans for any posts on this blog related to the YearlyKos gathering this weekend. Any readers leaning to the right would either post negative comments or express they already know about it. Those on the left would accuse this blog of some sort of conspiracy or claim they were being attacked by a right wing blog. Those may not be the only possibilities but the point is the plan to post about YearlyKos on this blog has changed. And there is only one reason for that change. Scanning this morning’s usual resources led to reading too many headlines. Two headlines raised the question of what is wrong with politics and public debate in this country.
Here is part of a post that started the revisiting of an old issue.
While this is certainly not an inflammatory statement or set of remarks, the part about cheers or snickers is unnecessary. But if that blog receives regular criticism from their opposition it may have simply been a defense against excessive rants by stating the obvious or expected reaction. Fine. But if that was necessary it points to part of what is wrong with public debate. Too much time and effort expended on discussion that does not address the issues in an intelligent manner. Please withhold your comments until the end. Here is the second of the two items that caused this post.
The excerpt above is representative of common content found on the net from sites of various political persuasions. The left does not need to employ the word wingnut. The right does not need to employ the word nutroots. The name calling and rants fired from one side of politics to the other may incite each sides’ fans but is certainly not insightful. And again, it does nothing to advance debate on the issues. The practice is available in every political camp so there should be no taking sides here.
Some other parts of the second item referenced were also troubling and worth mentioning. The author, indicated as Marc McDonald, claims CNN to be ‘corporate mainstream media’ and ‘quite happy to carry the GOP’s water.’ Yet at the bottom of the second page he credits the same CNN for ‘featuring’ and ‘reviewing’ his work on the web that would be left leaning based on the author’s own referenced item.
Shortly after the opening paragraph there are more unsupported claims from this ‘award winning journalist.’ His description of Limbaugh and O’Reilly as ‘GOP propagandists’ who ‘peddle their daily lies and bullshit’ do not represent sought after qualities in a journalist or offer any substance to a debate on the issues. These are the characteristics of the kind of political expression that hinder the process and obstruct the search for solutions.
Searching for supporting evidence of the author’s claims of past work, awards and MSM review of his ‘web work’ were not successful. If anyone, including the author, can provide reliable third party or independent verification of these claims it would be appreciated.
One final note on Marc McDonald’s references to Limbaugh and O’Reilly is worth mentioning. This blog has been critical of Limbaugh and occasionally agreed with him. In general, Limbaugh is viewed here as someone who makes a living from a talk show and appraisal of his work should include that fact. There is no comment on this blog about O’Reilly. Point is, people involved in political debate should present their arguments with facts and references that can be challenged by those with opposing viewpoints. The rants and insults fired back and forth are useless in terms of the search for answers or to build consensus.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
August 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Good article.
I think mentioning Limbaugh is salient. His show is basically entertainment dressed up in political garb. I don’t say that to denigrate his ideas, just to explain that the hyperbole we see from him was originally part of the general entertainment that American politics provided to a more sober and centrist public.
Something happened on the way to the internet, though. The jokes and the name-calling became de rigeur, and the lively, fun nature of mocking somebody because of their beliefs became just mocking them, then actively trying to trash them and anything they were associated with.
To me, it seems a race to the bottom, where if you have a blog or a political outlet you are compelled to be constantly angry and bitter about something — anything. Your ideological opponents are not good people with bad ideas: they are stupid, or evil geniuses.
It would be nice if level-headed people could discuss issues of the day. It seems, however, that they are stuck hand-holding a bunch of toddlers — explaining how they need to share, how name-calling is not nice, and how their version of “what happened” is at odds with other versions.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
To debate the issues by presenting arguments with supporting data from multiple viewpoints has taken a back seat to some sort of sport.
Thanks for stoppin’ by. Thanks for the review and the comment. Sorry for the late reply.