Politics, Entertainment, and Discourse.

The class in which we discussed the influence of entertainment and media had a profound impact on me as it put into words thoughts that I have had for a very long time. Being a religious Jew, living in Israel, and studying government, I never find myself at a loss for subject matter with which to have an argument. I don't mean to come across as an abrasive (or haughty) person but I tend to be intelectually stimulated by discussion and debate. However, I have found that I have a certain sense of alienation within some of my peer group because far too often they will end their point of view with a phrase along the lines of "I saw it on t.v." Before I continue, I am sure I have fallen victim to some of the issues we discussed in class, as the overall idea of lecture was the entertainment (and its "diluting" effect) permeate everything in our lives, so I am not implying I am 'above it all' yet this is a topic I have thought about for some time.

The phrase that affected me most in class was Postmans idea that the "junk" on tv is less of a problem than the fact that it is portrayed as "discourse." Public discourse was (and still is), philisophically speaking, the foundation of democracy. The concept that our right to open debate and discussion was revolutionary when it came about and influenced many other ideas such as "knowledge is power." The media age has not taken away from our ability to free speech, in fact just the opposite, but since the fight was always an attempt to gain free speech the discussion regarding the quality of that speech was merely an afterthought. The biggest problem, as Postman accurately described, is the fact that we have a generation growing up believing that discourse is the 45 second news bite on tv. Because the primary news source is becoming (or has become) t.v. or bite-sized internet articles found on a homepage, the attitude regarding these sources has begun to see them with much higher integrity than is deserved. This brings me to my original point, which is the fact that as people begin to view these sources with higher integrity the value of the discussion follows is severly diluted. We are essentially breeding our future to be a bunch of attention deficit leaders who believe that a cursory knowledge of a subject is all that is necessary.

The second problem presented, possibly as important as the first (though this would not be a problem were it not for the low value of media presented) is the permeation of the media. It has affected everything. Politics, as seen by the JFK/Nixon debate will forever be changed with Presidential candidates presumably spending just as much (if not more) time on perfecting their mannerisms, looks, appeal, and over all on camera presence, as they do on their policies themselves. It is a valid assumption to say that the candidates, and even electees, attempt to take what should be an intense clear discription of policy and shape it so that it will sound agreeable in a 10 second soundbite. Words are not all that is lost through the whittling down of the subject matter, ideas and integral facts to the issue are lost as words are all we have to express ideas. It goes beyond politics into the world of journalism as well. Stories are both shown and thrown away based on their attactiveness to viewers. So many people will use the line "I saw it on the History Channel" while ignoring the simple fact that the History Channel, just like Fox, NBC, or MTV, has the same exact goal as every t.v. station and that is selling ad time. When it comes to money, facts are ignored. We are left with a world that believes every single issue is infinitly important, infinitly interesting, and can be expressed in a minute (which appears to me as counterintuitive). When presented real papers, or real books expressing ideas in their entirety people of our day and age will say it is to dry and to long, effectively suffocating our world of true innovation and true discussion.

What sums all this up to me was the decision on Stephen Colbert to run in the 2008 Presidential Election. Colbert is a reporter for a news show entitled "The Colbert Report" an offshoot of "The Daily Show." Although both of those shows are listed as being fake, and for comedic value, the stories presented are real and are arguably presented with as much integrity as "real" news stations. At least with the comedy shows we know what their bias and motivation is. Furthermore, Colberts decision to run as a candidate for President, and his sucess in doing so (he eventually withdrew his name or lost early in the primarys... but not after gaining a substantial cult following.) shows that in order to be seen as a legitimate candidate one of the most important things (above political knowledge) is a media-friendly personality. But most important of all is that even though I found his candidacy amusing, the fact that our political sphere has become a ground for comedic activity shows somewhat the dilution of the value held in public discourse and the high regard with which we should be holding our right to public debate.