- Aug 12, 2009
- 37,810
- 7,317
sure, but theres usually, only one side held to account ion the very same media that has helped perpetuate the idiocy.....ala Paul Krugman?
Sorry, man - I'm having a little trouble parsing this.
But here's my shot:
Each side "holds to account" the other.
Sean Hannity will talk about how all liberals were trying to blame white people. Chris Matthews will talk about how conservatives are salivating for more reasons to hate Muslims. David Sirota will write blogs about how he wishes it's a white guy, and Pamela Gellar will blog about how evil Muslims are.
The shrillest and loudest and most annoying on either side will be shrill and annoying at each other for a while.
Then we'll find something new to be shrill and annoying about, and repeat the whole process.
I'm not sure I understand your reference to Paul Krugman though.
hannity is a gorilla, he browbeats his guests etc. and practices in the main, guerrilla propaganda......
My reference to Krugman was his right out of the box piece on how the right motivated Loughner etc etc etc ....
and please doc, lets not pretend that the throw wight of the msm is not huge and dwarfs anything around it, still shapes opinions widely. In the end it is extremely dishonest and probably responsible more than any one thing, any piece of legislation etc. for the polarization we live in today.
I think Krugman is a blowhard, so I feel no need to defend him.
But I would argue that the so-called "MSM" doesn't really drive the narrative anymore.
For people who actually care, even 24-hour news shows can't keep up with the internet - and every day, more and more people are getting their news (and being told what to think) from the internet, not the TV or the Newspaper.