Social Question

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Why does it seem that small vocal minorities can hijack discussions with venom and vitrol as opposed to logic and common sense?

Asked by Adirondackwannabe (36713points) July 18th, 2010

Who decided some of these small groups could take over the media and our focus with strident words, and the other viewpoints get drowned out? It’s happening all over the place. It seems spite and nastiness trumps common sense and intelligence. Why are we putting up with this?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

15 Answers

Blackberry's avatar

Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, depending on what you’re referring to?

tinyfaery's avatar

The media distributes what sells. So I guess we, the media consuming public, are to blame.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Blackberry I didn’t have a specific group in mind, just a general observation. Reason gets drowned out by nastiness.

Blackberry's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe I agree, that is the primitive part of us. Even arguing with a religious person, when I feel I can counter many of their arguments, I still become angry when I should not. I am working on it progressively. It’s frustration overcoming reason.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

@Blackberry I wasn’t thinking of religion when I asked that, but you,re right. Thats the all time hot button group. lol

gorillapaws's avatar

@tinyfaery I agree that media distributes what sells, but I tend to blame the fact that the media companies were allowed to be bought out by huge mega-corps as the reason it’s as bad as it is. Before there used to be a sense of journalistic integrity, getting to the truth of the matter, calling out poorly reasoned arguments and factual misstatements.

It seems now that the news is all about sound bytes and commercials (and it makes you wonder how you can report fairly on a company when they’re paying your salary).

tinyfaery's avatar

@tinyfaery Agreed. It came along with 24 hour news, as well. You have to fill up that time with something.

gorillapaws's avatar

@tinyfaery I think there’s plenty of news out there to fill up 24-hours, the problem is that they look as sensationalized crap and rarely do in-depth analysis of any issue. As soon as to people get into the meat of a discussion, the host cuts to a commercial and has them switch topics. It’s obnoxious to the point of being infuriating. I usually get my news form PBS these days.

tinyfaery's avatar

Well, I don’t watch cable news so I cannot attest to anything that they do.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

Because people tune in. My bf loves to listen to what I call “Old Man radio” where a few commentators go all histrionic about politicians’ vocabulary, private life activity and stuff. The more they yell back and forth then the more they remind me of why I don’t watch cartoons either.

TexasDude's avatar

One man’s vocal, vitriolic minority is another man’s accepted majority.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Because they think that if they scream loud, people will be more apt to believe what they’re saying no matter how idiotic.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

@Dutchess_III- it annoys me how these shows have their female clone speakers all use the same artificial “tough bitch” voice as if that will convince us she’s smart and correct about whatever she’s popping her eyes out and jutting her jaw about. Another reason I can’t watch or listen but in passing- I’m female and I’ve never seen the need to alter my outward femininity in order to be taken seriously by others.

ipso's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe – Who’s common sense? You mean your common sense?

I tend to think it has always been the case, and not some recent phenomenon – however – if you’re looking for the smoking gun in US media, you’ll want to know about the 1987 FCC repeal of the Fairness Doctrine mandating an equal opinion footprint. Apparently Regan thought that what was really fair was that the electronic media should be as free as the press – and not have government dictating the content policy.

Rush Limbaugh was the first to take the ball and RUN with it. He launched an entertainment phenomenon that has inspired visions and copycats on both sides of the aisle to this day – both for monetary gain and in attempt to “spread the word”. Rush signed a new $400M contract. So surely there is demand for what he is saying.

Personally, I think there should be a better distinction between “News” and Entertainment, but I prefer the freedom to not watch from a wider variety of options – and soundly agree the government has no business mandating content.

I think Fox news is ridiculous. However the disdain many feel to Fox News and their supporters is what conservatives had been feeling for decades with the Washington Post and NYT, etc. in the 60s/70s (imho). Many Liberals don’t like their own medicine. Recent Liberals perhaps don’t see the recent phenomenon as backlash.

“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” -Friedrich Nietzsche

“No one lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.” -Friedrich Nietzsche

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther