Another out of character comment

[subplotkudzu]

That is to say, politics. I have a question: what will it take to stop the American political process from placing a center of gravity in 1968? I had hoped that having a candidate that wasn't even in double digits of age in 1968 would be sufficient, but people are now arduously tracking down those of the requisite age who he has had contact with, lest anyone forget how important the late 60's were. 

At this point I'm beginning to suspect it might take the death of everyone born prior to 1953. In future years, I might have to raise that date, but it's possible that even when there is no one alive who knew anyone who was alive in 1968 that we'll still be asking whether their great grandparents had a student deferment to the Vietnam war and what that meant.  

Comments

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

Comes down to cases... but even Colin Powell would get asked about "his" role in Mai Lai (he was, iirc, about two tiers up on the chain of command from Lt. Calley) if it suited the media's need at the moment.

Remember, the media does not really exist to inform or entertain. It exists to sell advertising, which means they benefit more from gotcha and drama than an honest contest of contrasting ideas. Throw in the fact that last night, on the ideas, was a case of "you, too, eh?" and something needed to be done.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

I don't buy pinning the blame on this for the media. When John McCain dinged Hillary for funding the Woodstock museum (remember? he's sure it was a nice concert, but he was tied up at the time?) the source wasn't the media and the target wasn't the media - it was a points scoring line for his consituancy. Likewise when Democrats discuss Iraq policy you can generally use your fingers count the number of minutes or paragraphs before someone mentioned Bush/Cheney/Rumsefelds/Whomever's student deferments from 'Nam. Any discussion of race includes ones relative proximity to MLK.

In both parties it's not about what's happening now - it's about what's happening now in the context of what happened in the late 60's. Everything, in the end, revolves around trhe late 60's. And it's getting pretty old.

I'm not blaming the media.

[panzerschrek.livejournal.com]

I am not blaming the media. I am simply acknowledging the nature of the beast. Like the scorpion of the parable, it is their nature to drift toward the sensational and the bloody. Controversy, even artificial controversy, is like sex -- it sells. Hence, the media will, like moths near a bug-zapper, will drift towards the bright shiny object. It is the one thing that honestly overrides the individual biases of the various media outlets -- the smell of political blood in the water. As such, they will frenzy over the latest "-gate" issue, giving the latest bombastic utterings or verbal stilleto a megaphone, so long as it sells papers. A quiet week simply becomes an opportunity to look for the next fire-cracker.

Additionally, politics is a negative feed-back loop. With so many lawyers, they operate on precedent -- if side "a" thinks they're even, then side "b" thinks their one behind; when side "b" does their thing, the poles reverse, with side "a" casting about for a place to stick the knife. Like the French Army, the American political establishment is armed to the teeth in preparation for the last great conflict.

The problem is that the mid sixties to the early seventies *WAS* that last great political watershed and is, for good or for ill, the schwerpunkt for the current campaign. It was the last time that everything changed, traumatically in some cases. Like a pulled tooth, they keep coming back to it.

Re: I'm not blaming the media.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Like a pulled tooth, they keep coming back to it.

But for how long, Spock! For how...long?