- Joined
- Jan 7, 2022
- Messages
- 6,224
- Reaction score
- 6,675
I don't mean the left and the right in government, but the left and the right common citizens.
Awhile back I watched the documentary: Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3518012/
The documentary gets into the birth of talking heads and the rise of punditry as a dominant form of distributing information. Highly recommended for those interested in history and media.
Near the end there was a comment along the lines of: people can be living in the same borders but experiencing two different interpretations of reality. And that when we're living in two separate realities the idea of compromise becomes harder and harder to achieve because we are no longer speaking the same language.
I think this can be seen with most news shows. They get two opposing sides to bicker back and forth about a very complex issue that requires a very long time to untangle. Rather than finding common ground the guests usually just throw out talking points that the partisans of each side slurp up for repetition. This gets us nowhere I would argue. This is also the same for political debates and political interviews.
I think episode 1 of "The Problem with Jon Stewart" attempted to do that by focusing on a topic that everyone could get behind -- adequate treatment and full insurance coverage for our veterans. His show then of course went on to churn out partisan narrative for the rest of the season.
Here is a clip of him interviewing the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs.
What I found embarrassing can be seen at the 3:25 mark when he does not know the metrics that were used - he only has talking points and no expert knowledge. And from 4:53 onward it's just a perfect example of incompetence for someone in a very high position with a big task/responsibility.
This is an individual who is in a very high position, very high pay and in a very important role requiring incredible attention and knowledge. Yet what we see is just political responses and a persistent lack of knowledge on the topic that he is tasked with understanding with the utmost level of expertise.
And we see this constantly with elected officials as well as un-elected bureaucrats. They don't just have the answers which shows their lack of knowledge and incompetence for high positions, but they also display a brazen level of laziness in that they do not even do the necessary research for the interviews. On top of that, the interviewers in most cases never drill them heavily demanding an answer for the people.
So with all that said - thank you for your patience if you read it - I think that both the left and the right can get behind the idea of accountability from these people in adequately responding to necessary questions.
I would say that regardless of the political party in charge of the executive, the president should be required to do, at least monthly, unscripted Q&A sessions with the press both mainstream and independent and without pre-approved questions. Can we all agree on that or is there a problem with that, too?
So what other things can the left and the right find common ground on?
Awhile back I watched the documentary: Best of Enemies: Buckley vs. Vidal
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3518012/
The documentary gets into the birth of talking heads and the rise of punditry as a dominant form of distributing information. Highly recommended for those interested in history and media.
Near the end there was a comment along the lines of: people can be living in the same borders but experiencing two different interpretations of reality. And that when we're living in two separate realities the idea of compromise becomes harder and harder to achieve because we are no longer speaking the same language.
I think this can be seen with most news shows. They get two opposing sides to bicker back and forth about a very complex issue that requires a very long time to untangle. Rather than finding common ground the guests usually just throw out talking points that the partisans of each side slurp up for repetition. This gets us nowhere I would argue. This is also the same for political debates and political interviews.
I think episode 1 of "The Problem with Jon Stewart" attempted to do that by focusing on a topic that everyone could get behind -- adequate treatment and full insurance coverage for our veterans. His show then of course went on to churn out partisan narrative for the rest of the season.
Here is a clip of him interviewing the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs.
What I found embarrassing can be seen at the 3:25 mark when he does not know the metrics that were used - he only has talking points and no expert knowledge. And from 4:53 onward it's just a perfect example of incompetence for someone in a very high position with a big task/responsibility.
This is an individual who is in a very high position, very high pay and in a very important role requiring incredible attention and knowledge. Yet what we see is just political responses and a persistent lack of knowledge on the topic that he is tasked with understanding with the utmost level of expertise.
And we see this constantly with elected officials as well as un-elected bureaucrats. They don't just have the answers which shows their lack of knowledge and incompetence for high positions, but they also display a brazen level of laziness in that they do not even do the necessary research for the interviews. On top of that, the interviewers in most cases never drill them heavily demanding an answer for the people.
So with all that said - thank you for your patience if you read it - I think that both the left and the right can get behind the idea of accountability from these people in adequately responding to necessary questions.
I would say that regardless of the political party in charge of the executive, the president should be required to do, at least monthly, unscripted Q&A sessions with the press both mainstream and independent and without pre-approved questions. Can we all agree on that or is there a problem with that, too?
So what other things can the left and the right find common ground on?
