8 years ago
21
How the cult of celebrity is destroying American politics
Politicians peddling personal narratives are making a cheap grab for America’s growing cult of celebrity. Often, especially on the right, their political positions are wildly unpopular and even damaging. People like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mike Huckabee must lean on “compelling” personal stories and appeals to religious tribalism, because their policy prescriptions straight up suck. It’s much easier to offer some folksy nonsense about Jesus than it is to explain away their ugly bigotry...
Continue Reading
http://www.salon.com
Join the Discussion
Oh, dear. So this site is just as biased, slanted, closed minded as that last. Too bad.
Care to elaborate?
I'm guessing the answer will be "liberal bias."
Yup. Called it.
Oh, look, a snarky response from the "famous" spaceghoti. Talking about me behind my back. Discounting my comment with two quick words instead of a discussion about said article. I thought y'all were different. I was brave enough to respond to "care to elaborate?" only to get knocked down. Thanks. At least I didn't get downvoted, amirite? That is your claim to fame, eh? I thought five to eight word responses were not acceptable either. A whole lot of promises broken, if you ask me.
I'm sorry, what promises did I make to you? I'm sorry that you didn't find the hivemind you were looking for but yes, I'm going to find and post material that I think accurately reflects reality. You are not obligated to agree with me. But I responded to snark with snark, and I make no apologies for accurately predicting what your complaint would be.
Ha ha, hivemind I'm looking for? That's rich. I never said you made promises. Snapzu has been "guiding" new users all weekend to respect this kinder site than we're used to. Those promises. Anyway, go on with your bad self.
So if I understand you correctly you opened with a hostile comment describing Snapzu as "biased, slanted, closed minded" and now you're objecting because it elicited responses in kind? Just so we're all on the same page here.
Like I said, you go on with your bad self.
And yet, here he is, with his comment still above zero, because you guys are so petrified to downvote. So, if the community at large agrees he has a valid enough opinion, then have a discussion with him. Quit arguing about petty bullshit.
The first paragraph seen cites a liberal tabloid (the CEO's own words) calling out two Hispanics' "ugly bigotry," and you want me to elaborate?
I'm going to assume you are referring to Snapzu as "this site" and say I don't think the content being shared is indicative of an entire site being biased. If the users of the site generally approve of and upvote the content, then you can say the users are biased, slanted, and close-minded. However your criticism would be far better received with a proper response to the article than some attack on its perceived value here.
no, no, no, Salon.com. Its own CEO calls it a liberal tabloid. Putting an article there that is not bashed for its bias immediately and all the hoity toity, well, um hum, yes I see that this is true type discussion, is not and indication of an open and fair community that Snapzu has been touting.
If this is tabloid type Journalism, then where are the lies? Can you sight something in the article which is untrue, misquoted, or manipulated? I understand that it is pro-left, but the problem I see with the left and the right is, the right seems not to be interested in factual information.
It's an opinion piece; ergo, meant to be manipulative.
The article's point is interesting, and I think it extends far beyond the world of politics. Americans place a disproportionate importance on fame when judging the worth of anything. Years of reality TV and savvy marketing have drained the gravitas of anything that hasn't received media attention.
Just look at music... Nowadays, if you don't manage your media persona carefully, there's very little chance you'll make it big, and most big-name artists resort to "cross-marketing" (i.e. inviting guests on their tracks) to boost their brand. Someone like Kanye West may be a hip hop master, but he mostly gets attention for being so present in the media.
And so, the real worth of ideas and creation have been drained from our discourse. Nowadays, success isn't about creating value; it's about generating enough buzz to bring it to the masses' attention. That's how we end up with something like 50 Shades of Grey topping the bestseller list.
A book like 50 shades of grey topping the charts isn't something new or unexpected. Bad books have always topped the best sellers charts. Period. even at the height of their fame, the Beatles were outsold by... The monkees. Yet people don't even consider the monkees when mentioning the Beatles, so why is 50 shades dominance looked at as an example of ideas and creation being drained from our discourse?
I'm not claiming the phenomenon is new, only that it's pervasive now. The Monkees might have topped the charts back when the Beatles were popular, but it seems to me that the Beatles wouldn't have been famous at all in our current climate... Not without a way to generate attention for themselves beyond their music.
Aight, your assuming that the Beatles got attention purely due to their music, but that ain't true, remember in the beginning they were viewed as a boy band, girls loved their looks and style. Plenty of artists let their music speak for them, the weeknd went platinum without doing any press or interviews.
Hmm. I may have overstated my case. It makes sense that marketing has always been a key component of success.
This was such a nice article for, like, the first half of it – I can totally get behind the "powerful narrative tool ... taken and twisted by politicians" gripe (although, isn't narrative, like, a key part of politics?). But something about Salon.com just rubs me the wrong way – I can't stand the overly-hostile language they use for every little issue. It makes me feel like i have to question my own beliefs whenever they actually do line up with whatever this site's spouting.
I don't really get the whole over-the-top "Bernie Sanders" fanclub thing going on, either – a friend linked me to a Salon article the other day that swore up and down Sanders would win the Democratic nomination from under Hillary's nose. Now, I'm not American, but even I can recognize it'd be political suicide for Democrats to pick a radical candidate when the only other option (a Republican, all of whom are liars and thieves) is someone they vehemently do not want running their country. I dunno – biased reporting really freaks me out.