Throughout the history of this country, there have always been differences in political ideology. Republicans and Democrats, as well as Liberals and Conservatives held and continue to hold common goals for this country. Where they differ is in the methods to achieve these goals. From the moment this country was born until the late 70s/early 80s, civil discourse was the norm in American politics. There were ideological disagreements, but politicians seemed to act in a more gentlemanly manner. Debate seemed to be more logical and less hystrionic. Politicians from opposite ends of the spectrum could actually be cordial and friendly with each other. They seemed to "agree to disagree", put their points on the table, let the vote decide, and abide by the decision. From the late 70s/early 80s on, however, it seems that civil discourse has gone out the window on all sides of the political spectrum, regardless of ideology or party affiliation. The volume has been turned up. The attacks seem to have become more personal. The debate seems to be focused less on the subject and more on personality. And, IMHO, it has led to politicians doing less and less for their constituents, on all levels. Sometimes when I watch Congress or the Senate in action on CSPAN, I feel like I am watching a legislature from another country in Europe or Asia, where debate often degenerates into fisticuffs. We may not be that far away from it in our country, and that sickens me. My question to my BBS brothers and sisters is: WHAT HAPPENED TO CIVIL DISCOURSE IN AMERICAN POLITICS? Is the disappearance of civil discourse in American politics a reflection of society? Is it a sign of the times? Is it a prelude to something worse? Opinions please.
If you read much history, you will find that we are no better or worse than we were years ago. There are political cartoons with Abe Lincoln's head on a snake; Jefferson lied like crazy and stabbed everyone in the back while seeking political office -- including calling his friend, John Adams, a traitor to the country and a lover of monarchy; personal attacks on people's sexual lives; etc. I don't think it's necessarily any worse today than it was then.
I'm not sure it's much worse (human nature is human nature, regardless of the year), but the advent of 24/7 news television has definitely made politics more of a public sport. It's not about right or wrong, but who "wins." And the drive to win can drive you to some ugly stuff.
I agree with Green.... The 24 hour news availability means most debates happen within 30 second sound bytes.
Greenboy's on the money. The networks need something to fill the 24 news station, and the hourly news update. They feed on controversy and we watch it like sports.
I actually think it is a break down of decorum. People used to respect each others personal space etc. Kennedy was a much worse womenizer then Clinton, yet reporters etc, left the topic alone. Now, the media has become so tabloidish that it will not stoop to report any small detail to boost it's ratings. This has caused decorum and personal space to be violated, and the line blurred. People just don't respect each other as much as they used to.....and that is sad. DD
Interesting research on the civility of Congressional discourse: http://www.appcpenn.org/political/civility
The whole talking over each other is the bastid child of Fox News. Since their success, they've all gone to such barking methods of discourse, complete with bells to sound the rounds. This is news for the masses, who have trouble watching news if it isn't ENTERTAINING. Candy Crowley talking in a monotone about a real issue, or Ann Coulter savaging the Clintons again? It all comes through the TV, and TV is 8-15 second sound bites. What did Rumsfeld say when he heard Democrats were attacking his performance? We'll tell you in the next segment. OH, what did he say? I'll bet he's gonna say "I'll meet Randy Macho Man Savage in the Steel Cage." Vince McMahon has won. Legit news has lost.
I agree with Greeny on this one although I must confess I always thought he was a girl, I guess its just the screen name, sorry vegan. FF, once again you're way off base, blaming FOXnews for the way politics is handled is like blaming Tupac for PDiddy.
my statement is accurate TV is where discourse takes place, specifically the NEWS. Fox created the new paradigm, and only those who are uninformed don't know that.
There's no question Fox News has changed the way TV news is reported. Their reporting is much more confrontational, their news shows are much more animated and their "debate" shows are very aggressive. This style appealed to many people, their ratings went up, and CNN, MSNBC and others scrambled to follow suit (though with much less success). This reactionary pack mentality is not good for objective reporting, but it's certainly good for ratings. And, let's not forget, this is a business. I don't watch Fox News because their coverage is blatantly biased, but there's no denying their role in transforming the way TV news is presented. Good or bad, Fox News has, at least in a small way, changed the way you and I get our information about the world.
this goes back further than Fox News...in all actuality, it may have started with Morton Downey, Jr. but certainly Crossfire became very confrontational and in-your-face...that was followed up by shows like Hardball where the host screams at all his guests. that was well before Fox News hit the air.
Oh, I agree. There were always shows like Hardball. But Fox News was the first to institutionalize it and make it part of *all* their coverage -- news, features, debates, commentary, etc. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I have less problem with their style (which, admittedly, IS more palatable to the masses), than their bias.
I watch all the news, and have for 30 years. In the beginning, there was only ABC, CBS, and NBC. Then came CNN and CSPAN. Then Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC. I watch all but CNBC, and I even watch it a couple of times a week. ------------ There's a saying among politicos: if it's not on TV, it didn't happen TV sets the tone. TV decides what we see and when we see it and how much we see it. TV is where today's discourse takes place. Even this form is a spinoff of TV. Look at your screen. We must always be entertained, even as we type. Fox changed the paradigm for TV, and TV is the method of most civil discourse in 2003.
While Fox news has certainly had an impact, I find it no more confrontational than Crossfire, which airs on CNN. Fox's impact, in my view, is its unapologetic bias. News has always had a certain bias, but at least it pretended it didn't. Fox news has also not been around since the 70's and 80's so I don't think we can pin the civil discourse (or lack thereof) trend on it. I go back to the need to provide entertaining news 24 hours a day. Take a read through the GARM (go on...I dare you), and you'll see what happens when we really have nothing to report on. Moochies hair, the tone Steve Francis uses in an interview -- they all become issues and we debate what they really mean. Johnny Depp makes an offhand comment in France, and it's reported throughout the US -- who knew he could talk? And who cared? I also wonder whether some stems from the whole Watergate and Vietnam mess of the 70's. Reporters ("journalists") are perhaps more apt to look to uncover the big conspiracy. And as the newsmakers are aware of what the reporters are looking for, they spin and spin away. Maybe I'm getting old. But it does get tiring. So I switch the channel to sports. And I'm happy again. EDIT I go for a coffee and Max posts my thoughts....I'm a little slow on the draw this morn.
You know what, it could be that it is all cable TVs fault. Follow me here: Before cable there was only a few TV news stations, now there are tons and they all have to do something to stand out, so each one gets a little more contreversial then the last one....thus less decorum. DD
you guys mentioning Crossfire are fantasizing. It was anything but exciting up until the past two years: 4 old goats sitting around droning on in sequence about whatever. Only in the wake of the Fox News success has CNN shifted towards the new Crossfire. The new Crossfire is a Fox knockoff. Crossfire and CNN existed for a long time without getting into the punching bag method of discourse. Lack of respect is directly attributable to the methods Fox employs, and their methods are taken from conservative talk radio.
The old crossfire was hardly an informational debate. My wife would leave the room or roll her eyes as she dismissed the show as a bunch of eggheads nattering on in sound bites about nothing and always interupting each other. She was right. This was several years before Fox. There's lots to critisize about Fox, but they did not start this trend -- though they've certainly embraced it.
