A Treatise on History, Political Science, the Media and Being Informed

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

This is a long post, but it's something I've been working on for a while and I want to get some input on it.  Kudos in advance if you get all the way through it.  I promise - it'll be worth your while (sorry that I can't give your money back if it's not...)

For my job, I work for the university's disability resource center taking notes for students who can't take notes for themselves (because of hearing loss or what-have-you).  Today, I was taking notes in a freshman-level political science class and there was an interesting exchange that made me - not proud, exactly, but happy at least at I am as informed as I am.

The first section of lectures for this class is "Why Should You Study Government?"  For the past few days, the professor has been go on at length about how this recession came about and what the government needs to do about it, but also pointing out the fact that the government had a big hand in causing this mess in the first place (liberals say the darndest things... already I can tell this semester is going to be a barrel of laughs).  We finally got on to the next point of his whole why studying government is important and the professor threw this little statistical gem out there:

60% of Americans are ill-informed rubes.  They are confused and bewildered about what's going on in the world at large and when crises occur (like 9/11 or the current recession), they freak out and all hell breaks loose.  The reason: these 60% choose not to read books or newspapers or partake in any reliable media (he didn't say what was considered "reliable" media - but he did go on a whole tangent earlier in the lecture that there is next to no "media bias" in NBC, CBS, The New York Times, The Washington Post and a few others.  He did make it a point to say that Fox News has a bias - even mentioned Glenn Beck by name).

On the other hand, 40% of Americans are educated as to current events and other places in the world because they read books by [and he threw out a liberal author, but I can't for the life of me remember - I had to give my notes to the student I was taking them for].  They adopt things from other cultures into their own lifestyles, they are tolerant and accepting of the whole world - that kind of thing.  This knowledge helps them be more confident in making good decisions in who they vote for, etc.

At this point, an international student from Asia raised her hand and (very angrily) demanded to know why the United States considered itself the greatest democracy if more than half of our population was so ill-informed.  Democracy meaning that the country is run by the people and our country is run by a bunch of cavemen who can't even open a book (the guy in front of my said something about us being a democratic republic - wish he would have said it louder).  Seriously - this girl was ready to .... do something crazy - the rest of us were a little on edge.

At this point the professor went on to talk about how the other industrialized nations are catching up to us in education and such... but I finally got to the point that I want to make in my post.

This actually has something to do with something my dad and I were discussing a few weeks back and it all came together in my head during this class.  My dad and I talked about how our grandparents had the Depression and World War II to help them work for what they got and appreciate what they had, including the country they live in.  By the time the fifties came around, the people that lived through those things didn't want their kids to go through them (these kids being baby-boomers).  So the WWII generation finally has some prosperity and they want their children to enjoy that in their childhood.  By and large (and I'm making broad generalizations here), the baby-boomers didn't have much that they had to work for.  And they felt guilty because their parents suffered, but they didn't.  Their parents had a Greater Cause to support and they wanted that too.  Yeah, you had Korea and the Cold War going on, but that wasn't enough - they wanted something to be known for - just like their parents.

In 1963, Kennedy gets shot and Vietnam has been going on for a few years and this generation gets to have their moment.  For some reason, Kennedy was their president and it was such a tragedy that they lived through their president getting killed (forgive any and all insensitivity on this subject - JFK was waaaay before my time and no one's been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why he was such a great president, other than he got shot.  I don't see James Garfield's head on the 50-cent piece).

So, Kennedy is killed and the nation goes into mourning.  The baby-boomers have their national tragedy.  Coupled with Vietnam and the '60s counter-culture revolution, this is where the "We Hate America" movement begins (as far as this '80s baby can tell - this is a theory in progress - any input is welcome and helpful).  The liberal hippies get on TV (all three channels) and tell everyone (not in so many words, but it means the same thing) that America is an awful, terrible country and Americans are the scum of the earth.

This is what my dad said what the news was like during his growing-up years (he was born in 1962): They attacked his deeply held values and made him feel like he was a bad person for being a Republican and (worse) an American.  But - my dad trusted his dad (my Grandpa) and felt that Grandpa's views held water better than Walter Cronkite's did (no reason - other than that gut feeling that pretty much everyone gets when they hear something they agree with).  When Rush Limbaugh came onto the scene in 1989, Dad said he had no problem listening because Rush said the same things that Grandpa did! (this is the same Grandpa who was a struggling newlywed during the Depression and had one son drafted into the Korean War and another into the Vietnam War.  The only reason Grandpa didn't serve in WWII was because of a heart condition that made it impossible for him to serve).

Okay - my point as to why 60% of Americans are ill-informed rubes: After 30-40 years of all "reliable" media outlets telling you your country is crap and responsible for all the bad things in the world, why on Earth would you want to watch the news anymore?  I'm guessing that most Americans don't want to listen to the blowhards on CBS and NBC and NPR... but they don't want to watch Fox News, etc. because they've been told that Fox has an "agenda" and well, only ill-informed rubes watch Fox News.

Well, if you think about it, Fox does have an agenda.  Their agenda is to present the other side.  Personally, I don't think Fox itself is "Fair and Balanced" - but it made media as a whole more balanced because most other media outlets are liberal.  So, Fox came in and leveled the playing field.  And the MSM are mad about it.  Their monopoly is gone and they're afraid that people will wise up and figure out that there actually is a choice in how they get their information.

People say that you have to listen to views opposite yours in order to be fully informed and make an educated decision.  It's not hard for me to find someone who disagrees with me - I just have to turn on channel 2 (or go to this political science class).  But what if I want to listen to someone who actually agrees with me?  It's a little harder for me to find someone - though not as hard as it was for my dad to find.  And it's worth it because, frankly, it's refreshing to listen to someone who shares my views.

It was interesting (going back to the class) - another girl made the comment that it would be easier for the government to keep their power if the people they're over stay uneducated and uninformed.  I wanted to get up and point to the biased public education system in this country - but the professor grunted something about her comment being right before moving on to something else.

Bottom Line: If listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else makes me an "ill-informed rube" - boy, do I feel very confident in the knowledge and information I have.

Comments

[caromiofic.livejournal.com]

You're right about the '60s. That's when patriotism started to weaken. Eventually it didn't help the Republicans that Nixon was from that party.

A lot of people also stopped watching the news a long time ago because they find it depressing, with every story about something bad happening. Very few uplifting human interest stories. They find all the negativity brings their overall mood down about everything.

My mom was my political teacher. She grew up in a house of New Deal Dems, researched both parties at 18, and decided the Republicans lined up with her views. She taught American History and Government for 30 years, and eventually converted her brother to being a conservative once their parents were gone.

We got a decent stereo system with a good radio signal when I was in high school, so she turned on talk radio during break. Rush, of course. :) Being a conservative always made sense, so I knew what I was registering as on my 18th. I was in AP Gov't at the time, so the students actually cared about voting.

I do notice more liberalism and tabloid journalism on my local stations than when I was younger. I'm old enough to miss the Reagan days, sigh...

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

God bless people like your mother.

I think that young people nowadays are actually reversing the hole the '60s got us into. Sure, you've got the MTV drips, but I think (I hope) that my generation will be the one to pull us out of this liberal trash.

Seriously (and I don't want you to take this the wrong way), but I'm jealous that you remember the Reagan years. I wish I would have been coherent enough to remember them (I was four when he left office). I'm hoping that Obama will pull enough of a Jimmy Carter that we can get someone akin to Reagan in 2012.

[regalpewter.livejournal.com]

Well, as to JFK, he was in a time when we were coming to realize the very real danger that we faced with the Soviet Union. He had unusual ideas and was literally the youngest man ever to take the highest office in our country. He was able to look at a communist regime who had threatened us and stare them down with out blinking. Sure, he made mistakes, most notably in his choice of LBJ. But, he did challenge us as a people to boldly go forth in a capitalist manner to acheave our nation's goals, culminating in the manned missions to the moon. Also, do not forget his first action was to lower taxes as he felt that "a rising tide lifts all boats". When examined in the present political climate, his values were closer to those spouted by today's Republicans than the democratic party as it now stands. Especially in the view of those that now surround our cheif exectutive.

YIS,
WRI

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

That's a much better explanation than "Camelot." Thanks! :)

[regalpewter.livejournal.com]

"Camelot" actually was the myth built by LBJ to secure his power after JFK's death to tap into the nation's mourning. All of the holders of our highest office have had their detractors, even Washington, it is just that they have been veiwed through history's lens which is rarely accurate.

YIS,
WRI

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

I would've joked, "Well, that explains Obama getting elected then."

*Rimshot.*

Many people are caught up with their own lives and do not pay much attention to current events. Some find the news depressing and they don't watch or read anything. Many of today's youth are not well-educated in civics because the (public) school system decided self-esteem, Gaia worship, and putting condoms on cucumbers were far more important topics.

But those people are seldom, if ever, conservatives. Those people you see at townhalls and tea parties are HIGHLY informed. That's why they're there. A year or two ago, someone did a survey on how informed liberal and conservative radio listeners, cable t.v. news viewers, and blog readers were. People who listened to Rush Limbaugh or watched Hannity & Colmes on Fox were among the most informed, slightly ahead of most of those who primarily use liberal outlets for their news.

What Mr. Left Wing Professor is saying is that most Americans are too dumb to figure out that leftist/progressive policy is what's best for them.

So, Kennedy is killed and the nation goes into mourning. The baby-boomers have their national tragedy. Coupled with Vietnam and the '60s counter-culture revolution, this is where the "We Hate America" movement begins (as far as this '80s baby can tell - this is a theory in progress - any input is welcome and helpful). The liberal hippies get on TV (all three channels) and tell everyone (not in so many words, but it means the same thing) that America is an awful, terrible country and Americans are the scum of the earth.

You're right...in fact someone wrote a book a few years ago that noted the American liberal crack-up began with Kennedy's assassination. Add to that Bobby Kennedy's assassination, the ongoing Vietnam war, and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and there were a lot of young people who lost faith in their country. They were easy pickin's for the red diaper babies raised with radical ideals by their '30s leftist parents and Soviet agents seeking to stir up discontent.

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

I heard about that survey. I remember thinking "wow - they finally got it!" Too bad that news piece didn't make it to the New York Times... sigh...

Someone wrote a book about that? Do you remember what it was called or who wrote it?

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

It's called "Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How The Kennedy Assassination Shattered American Liberalism" by James Piereson.

http://www.amazon.com/Camelot-Cultural-Revolution-Assassination-Liberalism/dp/1594031886?tag=dogpile-20

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

What Mr. Left Wing Professor is saying is that most Americans are too dumb to figure out that leftist/progressive policy is what's best for them.

Exactly!

You have to learn how to decipher their doublespeak. Once you do, you can do it in your sleep because it's so, so predictable.

[lilliew.livejournal.com]

Thank you for sharing and I think this one of many reasons why the liberals hate Fox News so much. They've had control over the media for so long, how dare someone not toe their line?

Thank Goodness of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and now the Internet blogosphere and many others for speaking out for conservatism.

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

I was once a Journalism major, but I got so fed up with the obvious media bias, even writing as a college student. It was like you couldn't graduate if you have even the slightest conservative tendencies (I was doomed from the get-go - probably why I bailed out sophomore year and switched to English). Since then, I've zeroed in on what the media is doing and how they're doing it because I know what they're about (having been behind enemy lines).

I *heart* your icon - mega dittos ^_^

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

I was born in 1962 also. From my perspective, the moral decay of our society was accelerated by several things -- birth control pill, feminism, atheist success and quashing public religion, and disillusionment with government because of Vietnam and Nixon. It was really a perfect storm that resulted in people turning their backs on anything "establishment," including the values that conservatives hold dear.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Just as a bit of a side note: This is why I have a huge problem with the labels of "liberal/left" and "conservative/right". It ends up sounding like these are two views and you choose one or the other and that's fine.

The reality of the matter is that (generally speaking) one of these views is based upon things that are true, and the other is not.

But I know there's really no way around using these types of labels. We have to name things SOMETHING in order to speak about them. I just wish there was, otherwise I feel everyone is just... talking past each other.

::sigh::

[jenny-wildcat.livejournal.com]

Yeah - it's true that most people are a smattering of many things. Example - there are things that the so-called "evangelical" wing believes that I don't agree with. Ideas are black and white - it's when you start dealing with individual people that things get in the gray area.

It is hard to talk about these things without using labels. I think it's more that you find people that agree with you on most issues and you stick with them, rather people whose views are (by and large) opposite of yours.

(I think that's what you're getting at - sorry if I missed the mark.)

[regalpewter.livejournal.com]

What gets even funnier is when people make assumptions about certain people; I deal with it a great deal in my own life and it gets quite humorious.

YIS,
WRI