Carl Tyler's Blog :: It's a digital world

Category None
I don't mean in the computer sense, but in the way issues are discussed today. I would love to say this is just the way media represents issues, but even my friends view issues the same way, it's either black or white with no in between. Some examples of this thinking were things like my dislike of George Bush, many interpreted that as indicating a dislike of all things Republican, or my feelings against invading Iraq were taken as being un-supportive of the troops, or indicated I'm someone supporting terrorism - all not true.

I don't believe the media help in peoples understandings of these issues, with coverage of stories often being portrayed as some kind of war or battle on even the smallest issue. The computer press is no different, "Exchange battles Domino", "Oracle attach Microsoft", "Java to kill ActiveX?", Linux goes to war with Windows" we've all seen them and we all know in reality very few companies choose a pure implementation of anything. Some may be running Windows and Linux, or Oracle and SQL, so where's the discussion of the middle ground when it's good to have a combination? In the same way, coverage of politicians always covers the outspoken extreme politicians, which not only gives politicians a bad rap for showing them as people that can never agree on anything, but also leads to the only people running for political positions in the future being people with extreme views.

Personally I'm getting tired of it and I think other people are too. My belief is that this is why less and less people are voting and eventually will lead to a serious rethinking of how modern democracies work.

Comments

1 - Very true Carl. Politics has lost its way, the main trouble I see here in the UK is that Politics has become a career. We'll notice this even more in the next 18 months as we prepare for an election. Everything will be rosey in the garden, with no bad news on the home front in the hope of retaining your seat. The sad thing for Blair and hence the labour party will be the Iraq situation and it ain't going to improve much in the next 12 months.

Posted by Dad At 12:39:29 PM On 04/28/2004 | - Website - |

2 - I saw the snake hidden in the rocks and i was the only one who could see it the others thought it was a piece of stick!!!!Phillie

Posted by Philippa Louise King your Niece At 03:28:38 PM On 04/28/2004 | - Website - |

3 - That's a big problem I have. Half of my beliefs fall squarely in the Democratic camp, and half fall on the Republican side. So when it comes time to vote, for me it really is trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Too many people are polorized one way or another, and it is very much a 1 versus 0 situation. Hopefully that will someday change with a true independant candidate, but it will take awhile.

At least people feel one way or the other. I hate the people that are violently neutral!

Take Care,
John

Posted by Greyhawk68 At 05:24:24 PM On 04/28/2004 | - Website - |

4 - In Australia we have an interesting twist, if you are over 18, you must vote or you get fined.

But because we have a 'generous' social security system, the result can sometimes not be what you expect.

Posted by Adam Osborne At 04:23:07 AM On 04/29/2004 | - Website - |

5 - Polarization - you call it digital. Interesting word relative to the situation.

Tonight on ER, the crippled lesbian doctor has to give away her daughter to the grandmother of her partner (that's all about I watched, my wife watches the show, I don't.) Is that fair? I'd guess 90% of us would say no, the other 10% would be directly related to the grandmother.

Reality is, these are the discussions we should be having about "gay marriage" - but we can't have them. Why? Well, because politicians, like SF's mayor, would much rather make waves saying the phrase "gay marriage" than saying "We should have an honest discussion about rights of gay and lesbian partners."

Unfortunately, the outcome of all the "gay marriage" brohaha will be that those people who were in the middle will move to the right, and it'll do more harm to any discussion about real rights than good.

The media is more than happy to do stories about "gay marriage" because they sell. They make us angry with each other, they divide us - digitize us - as you would say. Sells much more airtime than "civil union". Politicians and the media play us all like fiddles, and for some reason, we appear to happily go along for the ride.

Another example? At one of my clients is a Liberian woman. I know this because during one of our Notes training sessions she was helping with, she kept checking a Liberian web site, so I asked her about it. Seen any articles about Liberia lately? Probably not. Why? Well, there wasn't much bloodshed, wasn't much violence. When things go well, there just isn't much of a story to sell, is there?

Another? Jessica Lynch. A media was more than happy to do stories about her rescue - playing them up on air as much as possible. When it turned out it wasn't as daring as they originally said - well - they were duped! They were lead astray? They were shocked and aghast as the rest of us!!! Gasp! They built it up to celebrity status, then they sold ripping it apart. It's somewhat of a sideshow.

Lately? The tons of chemicals found in Amman, Jordan. You'd think this would be a huge story, but it got little air time. Chemicals? Al-Qaeda? Terrorists? Potentially 80,000 deaths?

Not much air time? Why? - Well, a conservative guy like myself might say that the liberal media didn't want to put out a story like that which would help George Bush. But reality is, they're too busy filling the airwaves with more stories about Najaf and how bad things are going. So, the decision comes - publish a story about how the war on terror might be working or make things sound as bad as possible.

People are voting less because they're cynical. I doubt we see less voting in the next election, though.

Posted by Jon Johnston At 10:58:06 PM On 04/29/2004 | - Website - |