The conservative entertainment complex

---

We like to be reassured that our beliefs are valid.  We gravitate to the news sources we prefer: the networks, MSNBC, Fox.

 

 

But sometimes we go too far.

 

 

A few weeks before the election, I saw a commercial for Bing Elections 2012, a Microsoft site enabling users to tailor the news to their own political beliefs.

 

 

Do you see anything wrong with this?

 

 

Opinion is opinion, and facts are facts. I belong to my own little group, and I believe what I believe; I groan when I read David Brooks and I giggle when I read Gail Collins.

 

 

But that’s not news. That’s opinion.

 

 

The idea that news – journalism – can be “tailored” to suit one’s political beliefs – well, that’s just repugnant.

 

 

Except that a good chunk of the electorate eats it up like ice cream, which creates all kinds of problems.

 

 

David Frum, late last week, spoke of the “conservative entertainment complex.” I knew immediately what he was talking about: the huge ungainly conglomeration of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, that feeds on itself and reassures itself that it’s absolutely correct. It's the conservative equivalent of that (imaginary) construct Sarah Palin herself named "the lamestream media."

 

 

It’s not just opinion. It’s “news.” It’s Bristol Palin on “Dancing with the Stars.” It’s radio screamers like Rush and his local followers (Rhode Island and Massachusetts have their share of these, which I’m sure are mild compared to those in other parts of the USA.)  It’s Ann Coulter, the right-wing Lisa Lampanelli.

 

 

They all reassure one another (and themselves) that they’re right, and that they represent America. Not just part of America, mind you, but the whole thing. Anything that isn’t part of their world (the Conservative Entertainment Complex – let’s just call it the CEC from here on) is alien, non-American, un-American.

 

 

This leads to problems.

 

 

Here are a few:

 

 

-          Public polling in October and early November showed clearly that Barack Obama had a significant lead in swing states. No! the CEC shrieked. Impossible! And they created their own “polls,” which showed Romney in the lead. People who should have known better – Karl Rove, even Romney himself – believed those fake polls. And – guess what? – the fake “polls” were utterly wrong.

-          (Side question: why would the GOP want to lie to itself? I know that, as an Obama voter, the mere suggestion that he was behind in any state (not just my own) made me more determined to go vote for him. The GOP really shot itself in the foot with this one.)

-          It’s not just political theory that the CEC simplifies, it’s everything. Do scientists support global climate change? Then let’s vilify and ridicule scientists. Did Obama get Osama Bin Laden? Well, we didn’t want Osama that badly in the first place.

-          Do you see a black man outside a Pennsylvania polling place? According to Fox News, he’s a threat, a menace.

-          Are Hispanics a threat to America, or valuable potential Republican voters? Hmm. Not sure. Let’s talk about Hispanics  as if they’re unwelcome and highly suspicious, and then see how they vote. They’re Catholics, so they’ll vote Republican. Right?

 

 

 

And here’s another thing: studies have actually shown that liberals are more willing to explore other points of view. Conservatives are more likely to ignore opposing beliefs. Ergo: they know less about what’s going on in the world.

 

 

I read the Financial Times almost every day. It’s the British/international version of the Wall Street Journal, except it’s far more free-wheeling. I read conservative and liberal editorials every day. Also I read journalism that’s very unbiased.

 

 

It refreshes me.

 

 

Kids: read everything. Watch everything.

 

 

Don’t let the CEC (or its liberal equivalent) tell you what to think.

 

 

Think for yourselves.

---

 

 

Saturday morning jabbering

---

Most weekend mornings, Partner and I watch a program called “Up with Chris Hayes.” Chris is a bright-looking young man with hipster glasses, who moderates one of those political-panel shows featuring people you’ve never heard of discussing issues of the day.

 

 

The problem on Chris’s show is that nothing really gets said.

 

 

Chris himself is a big part of the problem. He’s a jabberer. He’s obviously very bright, but he asks questions that turn into ten-sentence essays, and he continually interrupts himself, talking at top speed, because his mind is (obviously) working so very very quickly.

 

 

Unfortunately, his guests (consciously or unconsciously) follow suit. They jabber, and interrupt themselves, and one another. It’s like listening to dogs barking at one another in an animal-rescue facility.

 

 

Also, Chris does not necessarily invite the best or most compelling guests to his show. A while back he had Michael Ian Black on the panel, to discuss immigration issues. Michael Ian Black is a comedian / actor / performer, okay? He’s quite bright, I’m sure; he even co-wrote a book with Meghan McCain, for whatever that’s worth. I’m not sure, however, that he had anything powerfully compelling to contribute to a discussion about immigration rights. Also, back a few months ago, Chris had Mike Daisey on several weeks in a row to discuss Chinese factories, and the terrible conditions therein. Daisey claimed he’d been there and taken all kinds of direct testimony from people. Guess what? Daisey lied about many of the details. When confronted with this, he responded that he was a performer, not a journalist.

 

 

Around eleven o’clock on a recent Saturday morning, I went to the health club, and turned on the treadmill television, and saw Melissa Harris-Perry was on, and I sighed with relief. Her show is a lot like Chris Hayes’s show, with the following exceptions:

 

 

-        She speaks deliberately, in complete sentences.

-        Her guests (mostly) speak deliberately, in complete sentences.

-        Her guests (who on that morning included a former Cabinet official, a real journalist, and a professor) seem qualified to speak to the issues at hand.

 

 

It was a genuine pleasure to listen to her and her guests.

 

 

Chris Hayes, if you’re reading this: take a look at Melissa’s show. You might learn a thing or two.

 

 

 

The waiting room

---

I write this while sitting in the waiting area of a medical office, waiting for Partner to have a two-hour test.  There is a TV in the corner (tuned to MSNBC). We are all sitting numbly and basking in its glow.

 

 

(In my youth, back in the 1950s and 1960s, doctors and dentists had aquariums full of all kinds of crazy colorful creatures in their waiting rooms. The aquariums served the same purpose that televisions do today.)

 

 

The people in the waiting room can’t control the channel changer, which – I think – makes them droopy and inattentive.  This is exactly what TV viewing was like in my youth: no control.  You had your choice of a couple of things – three or four channels at most - and you made the best of it.

 

 

But here I am, tapping away on my iPad.  I can write, send emails, surf the Net. I’m free!

 

 

Quick visual survey of the area: two magazine readers, three book readers, one iPod, one person actually watching the TV.  There’s a surprising lack of representation from the iPhone / Blackberry community.  (The stats just changed: one book reader just put down his Grisham and moved in front of the TV screen.  Evidently he wanted to hear the story about Lady Gaga.)

 

 

Years of television exposure have made me TV-aware.  I can’t help listening to the television, even when I have my back to the set and am trying to think about something else. MSNBC is moderately relaxing for me because I can live with most of the opinions presented; I can live without the visual content, however, as most of their presenters look like they were hit in the face with a two-by-four. 

 

 

(But - you know? - I miss the days when doctors and dentists had aquariums.)

---