Keeping in mind that "print media" includes sources like the Washington Times and Weekly Standard, that is a stark difference indeed. And I would go so far as to say that somebody would have to make quite an effort to hold on to those misconceptions while reading the Washington Post every day. Same goes for beliefs about the wonders of privatization, the innocence of Tom DeLay, etc. And yes, I realize that the editorial page still manages to absord such nonsense on occasion, but that is a separate issue from the world of actual reporting.
Point being that the problem of a widely misinformed public cannot be pinned on the relatively few sources of original reporting in this country. In fact, the misconceptions seem to persist despite often excellent investigative reporting from places like the Post, WSJ, and Knight Ridder. The truth has come out, it is in the public domain - but it does not reach the wider public. It is not a matter of "the media" - it is a matter of filters.
FOX News is a filter, Limbaugh is a filter, the thousands of extreme religious right radio talk show hosts scattered across the country are a filter. (Blogs too, on both sides are a filter, as Thune and "those helping with his campaign" obviously realized.) And while many newspapers produce mountains of damning evidence against the White House and Republicans in Congress, it is usually almost all for naught - these filters will make sure that this evidence never reaches the eyes or ears of the greater public.(...)
And so the alternate universe continues to grow, and continues to close of all avenues of penetration for what might be called "the reality-based community." The fundamental psychological enabler of all of this remains what Lakoff and others have described as "identity politics." Before joining the DCCC, during the run-up to war and before Lakoff had made his big splash, I wrote a series of articles discussing how many in middle America had taken on support of President Bush as part of their identity, how once this happened it became a matter of personal pride to defend him, and how once this happened, acceptance of information contrary to their idealized vision of Bush provoked a violent response. An attack on Bush was also an attack on them. Much like the racism in much of America during the Jim Crow era, hatred of "the other" was tied in with a sense of superiority that - like most forms of pride - became a crutch that had to be defended with utmost tenacity.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
