|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Finding the Forgotten MajorityPosted on Jan 14, 2011By David Sirota “There is a need for some reflection here: What is too far now? What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.” Those were the words of an unnamed Republican senator after America’s latest shooting rampage, this one a political assassination attempt in Tucson, Ariz. How sad—and telling—that the lawmaker refused to attach his or her name to such an important truism. But that is the larger story of the slaughter’s aftermath. As conservative pundits spent the week insisting that their violent political rhetoric is somehow unrelated to political violence; as Sarah “Don’t Retreat, Reload” Palin scrubbed her website of rifle-sight graphics targeting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; as right-wing radio hosts sanitized the Tucson shooter as a “lone gunman” rather than a “terrorist”—in the midst of all this obfuscation, few public figures found the courage to acknowledge truths that so desperately need to be aired. One of those truths is that media can set societal norms and, thus, can help create conditions for violence—whether a mass murder in Tucson, an IRS bombing in Austin or any other future massacre. Another less obvious truth is that the new media economy encourages ever more violent vitriol because that’s now become the most reliable way to build a following and, thus, generate profit. Save for sensationalists like Rupert Murdoch, media owners today aren’t deliberately manufacturing this dangerous dynamic—for the most part, it reflects a convergence of market forces. In this brave new world of infinite information conduits, the audience is more fragmented than ever. That has made the pursuit of audience share more intense, ultimately rewarding the loudest violence-glorifying demagogues in the noisy rabble. And remember: The situation is being further exacerbated as many media outlets transform their business models from mass broadcast to niche narrowcast—a shift that allows relatively small fringe mobs to sustain the most vituperative voices of hate. Advertisement Like many who still cling to journalistic ideals and democratic principles, I’ve grappled with the pressures of this alarming change in the media landscape. As a radio host, I feel the constant pull of the pack mentality—that temptation to follow the path of least ratings resistance and use the public airwaves as a “blowtorch” (as the saying goes in the industry). Oh, how easy that would be—I could just add my voice to the now ubiquitous hatefest that polarizes issues and too often suggests violence is a legitimate form of political expression. Alas, I’ve done my best to avoid this sadistic melee. I’m sure I haven’t been perfect, but I’ve tried to find an alternative route that circumvents the pitchforks, torches and Glocks. And thankfully, I’ve found support. My Colorado radio station has unabashedly backed my attempt to create a different kind of programming, and I’ve found a diverse and growing listenership that values something more than violent invective. This is what still gives me hope in such dark times. For if there is an audience in my state that wants something more—something substantive and nonviolent—then there are audiences everywhere that want something more, too. It’s the media’s responsibility to start finding that forgotten majority before more blood is spilled. David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books “Hostile Takeover” and “The Uprising.” He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota. © 2011 CREATORS.COM  TAGS:
|
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By MarthaA, January 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
Maani, January 14 at 4:33 pm,
If militaristic propaganda is abated against the American Populace, the hate will cool down, but as long as the United States only has two political parties and the conservatives of both parties choose to use militaristic propaganda against the populace and mafia tactics for control of power, the American majority populace needs to quietly and peacefully begin a systematic withdrawal into representing their own interests in socialized capitalism, like the Bank of North Dakota, because the American Populace will never be represented as a class and culture by either party; they will choose to represent their own classes and cultures and continue using the American Populace as expendable independent individuals.
The American Populace must not by any means give up their right to guns where it is a criminal offense to own a gun, because it is not the guns that kill people, it is the people and their thirst for power that causes killing; knives are also weapons. If a person decides to kill, they will whether they have a gun or not, but having a gun is a safety measure of defense from any would be killer of human life.
Report thisBy oddsox, January 14, 2011 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
Isn’t this the same David Sirota who’s amused by the prospect of executing corrupt CEOs?
All in good fun after a few whiskeys with his journalist buddy, of course.
Here’s his column on Truthdig, 11/19/10:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/to_deter_crime_get_tough_on_wall_street_20101118/
Don’t forget to read trailing comments from his inspired followers:
Selected passages:
“..a capitalist sniper-assassin would make an interesting plot for a modern Robin Hoodlem future classic”
– NZDoug
“.. the most sensible suggestion I have heard in years.”
—de profundis clamavi
“…how many…would be willing to pull the switch.. on the…electric chairs…
I’d like my CEO medium rare please.”
—SarcastiCanuk
“strap a few of the most egregious crooks to the big bull on Wall Street and shoot them while everyone is wandering around on their lunch break.”
– C.Curtis.Dillon
“extrajudicial justice: ...100 bankers dangling from lamp-posts at mrka’s busiest cloverleafs.”
—godistwaddle
“How about some “salafist” retribution. We cut off the hand they used to steal with. Their choice ... ;^)”
—Layfayette
No, David, you haven’t been perfect.
Sirota, Olbermann, Beck or Limbaugh: all merely opposite sides of the same extreme coin.
Only in this time of tragedy do they call for civility.
Their contrition is real, but fleeting.
They cannot change who they are.
Read, watch & listen, by all means, but also realize that true and lasting progress will be not come from their ilk.
Report thisGenuine solutions will be authored by those Good People (yes, the Forgotten Majority) reaching out to each other to find common ground despite their differences.
By Maani, January 14, 2011 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
Martha:
I would go further. As I have read from a couple of pundits, there is little chance that violent rhetoric - particularly when associated with the gun culture - will stop as long as the U.S. is a war-based country. Because whether it is politics or sports (the two major pasttimes of Americans…), the violent, “militaristic” language is inherent, and would be extremely difficult to control, much less eliminate.
The war culture and the gun culture are more closely related than most people may realize. Until we seriously modify the former, the latter will remain.
Peace.
Report thisBy rickroberts, January 14, 2011 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
I certainly count Huffington Post among the sensationalists.
Report thisBy MarthaA, January 14, 2011 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
aacme88, January 14 at 1:20 pm,
Militaristic Propaganda isn’t free speech, but is a tool used by militaries to control the minds of the enemy; in this case, the Conservative Republican Right-Wing is using the population of the nation as the enemy.
Report thisBy madisolation, January 14, 2011 at 8:58 am Link to this comment
I remember when the media’s job was to investigate politicians and corporations.
Report thisBy aacme88, January 14, 2011 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
Sometimes I think that the founders of our nation had no way to anticipate some of the problems we deal with now. How much more abuse can free speech take before we start thinking about limiting it.
Report thisThe founders, being reasonable people and assuming most people were, seem to have assumed that anyone privileged enough to be born with guaranteed rights and freedoms would understand that they come with awesome responsibilities. These things used to be taught to everyone in childhood. But in a time when children are expected to raise themselves many essential pieces of knowledge just don’t get passed along.
So people grow up with rights much of the world would kill for, and have no awareness of what it took to secure those rights, and what they owe back. They have a sense of entitlement, and are just looking for a situation to exploit.
At some point we will have to protect ourselves from them. And not just by limiting speech.
By skimohawk, January 14, 2011 at 2:03 am Link to this comment
Well said, sir.
Remember when “60 Minutes” had the top Nielsen ratings?
Who’s #1 today on teevee?
Who’s #1 today on AM radio?
Bread and circuses! Bring on the gladiators!
Report thisPage 2 of 2 pages < 1 2