Politicians engage in what they call political discussion across many different mediums. They can be found on the radio, television and in the print media. Many of those listening are disappointed with what passes as an honest examination of their opponents and themselves.
The media claims that they are the ones that will provide the light and understanding for these conversations. They do not serve us any better than the politicians and their mouthpieces. The media, both on and off line, are in the various camps and will cover up for the actions and words of their favorite politicians.
When faced with a charge from one side, the other side deflects the issue and insults the person making the statement. A conversation is not possible if they, both, do not accept the idea that an actual conversation must have at least two sides participating. This is frustrating for people who would like to have something resolved.
The speech correctness, on one side, and the inability of the other side to point this out is at the core of not being able to discuss things honestly. The state of political discussion has degenerated into the mud slinging it is now. The walls, erected because of this, allows the discourse to fail.
The few debates that are conducted do not accomplish what they were designed to provide. Because of the way they are set up they do not get at the issues they reputedly claim to examine. The hosts usually take the side of one of the parties and are not representative of the larger number of people watching.
The things that can be done to accomplish true political discussion would be to make the debates actual debates. The honest discourse that can be discovered, in this way, could enable the watchers to know about the issues. Another idea is to require the press to report things that are done or said, like they are supposed too, and not try to take sides.
The media claims that they are the ones that will provide the light and understanding for these conversations. They do not serve us any better than the politicians and their mouthpieces. The media, both on and off line, are in the various camps and will cover up for the actions and words of their favorite politicians.
When faced with a charge from one side, the other side deflects the issue and insults the person making the statement. A conversation is not possible if they, both, do not accept the idea that an actual conversation must have at least two sides participating. This is frustrating for people who would like to have something resolved.
The speech correctness, on one side, and the inability of the other side to point this out is at the core of not being able to discuss things honestly. The state of political discussion has degenerated into the mud slinging it is now. The walls, erected because of this, allows the discourse to fail.
The few debates that are conducted do not accomplish what they were designed to provide. Because of the way they are set up they do not get at the issues they reputedly claim to examine. The hosts usually take the side of one of the parties and are not representative of the larger number of people watching.
The things that can be done to accomplish true political discussion would be to make the debates actual debates. The honest discourse that can be discovered, in this way, could enable the watchers to know about the issues. Another idea is to require the press to report things that are done or said, like they are supposed too, and not try to take sides.
0 Comments with Blogger
