![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm wondering if some of the rise in explosive rhetoric we've been seeing over the past decade or so isn't due to Attention Addicts -- people who get an adrenaline kick from people paying attention to them.
I'll freely admit to being one of those. Despite being relatively introverted, I love applause. I love being "on stage" with people watching. I love the 'feedback' of people who like what I'm doing. For me, I get my attention fix through music (directly) and through writing (rather indirectly). Hi -- I'm Steve and I'm an applause addict.
But for those whose interest is politics and whose skills fall into the 'public speaking' area, and who are also attention addicts, they risk invisibility if their level of rhetoric and discourse is calm and well-reasoned. TV, radio, and the internet are mediums that don't want 'calm and well-reasoned.' Calm and well-reasoned is boring. What they want is hyperbole, in all its forms. What they want is visceral conflict, in all its forms. What they want is excitement, and you don't get that by being calm and/or reasonable.
Therefore, if you're an attention addict wanting to get your fix, and you're given a platform, what you do is reach for the extremes. You foam at the mouth. You rail against the stupidity of the other side. You demonize the other side. The more scathing and 'amusing' your bon mots, the more attention you get. The more radical your statements, the more attention you get. The more vicious your comments, the more attention you get. The more outrageous you are, the more attention you get.
Therefore, what we see as 'spokepersons' for one side or the other are the extremists. You get gasbags like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or (to be fair) like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. You get visions of the world that are increasingly one-sided, where the other side is increasingly portrayed as the Devil Incarnate.
And you eventually get to situations similar to what we see today: where what passes for "fair and balanced" reporting isn't giving us the facts and letting us formulate our own opinion, but allowing two gasbag talking heads, one from each side, to contradict each other without the 'newsperson' ever stepping in to say "No, Mr. Gasbag, what you're saying isn't true: here are the facts. How do you explain them" or saying "You're not answering the question. Here's the question again. Listen to it this time and actually give me an answer." Where we have people feeling threatened by a "liberal, socialist, fascist" health care bill that's actually less liberal than the one Richard Nixon proposed. Where we have people so frightened of a government that's actually pretty damn centrist that they're forming militias.
So I wonder -- how do we move away from this form of rhetoric and discourse? Is it even possible? Has it actually never been possible?
I'll freely admit to being one of those. Despite being relatively introverted, I love applause. I love being "on stage" with people watching. I love the 'feedback' of people who like what I'm doing. For me, I get my attention fix through music (directly) and through writing (rather indirectly). Hi -- I'm Steve and I'm an applause addict.
But for those whose interest is politics and whose skills fall into the 'public speaking' area, and who are also attention addicts, they risk invisibility if their level of rhetoric and discourse is calm and well-reasoned. TV, radio, and the internet are mediums that don't want 'calm and well-reasoned.' Calm and well-reasoned is boring. What they want is hyperbole, in all its forms. What they want is visceral conflict, in all its forms. What they want is excitement, and you don't get that by being calm and/or reasonable.
Therefore, if you're an attention addict wanting to get your fix, and you're given a platform, what you do is reach for the extremes. You foam at the mouth. You rail against the stupidity of the other side. You demonize the other side. The more scathing and 'amusing' your bon mots, the more attention you get. The more radical your statements, the more attention you get. The more vicious your comments, the more attention you get. The more outrageous you are, the more attention you get.
Therefore, what we see as 'spokepersons' for one side or the other are the extremists. You get gasbags like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or (to be fair) like Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. You get visions of the world that are increasingly one-sided, where the other side is increasingly portrayed as the Devil Incarnate.
And you eventually get to situations similar to what we see today: where what passes for "fair and balanced" reporting isn't giving us the facts and letting us formulate our own opinion, but allowing two gasbag talking heads, one from each side, to contradict each other without the 'newsperson' ever stepping in to say "No, Mr. Gasbag, what you're saying isn't true: here are the facts. How do you explain them" or saying "You're not answering the question. Here's the question again. Listen to it this time and actually give me an answer." Where we have people feeling threatened by a "liberal, socialist, fascist" health care bill that's actually less liberal than the one Richard Nixon proposed. Where we have people so frightened of a government that's actually pretty damn centrist that they're forming militias.
So I wonder -- how do we move away from this form of rhetoric and discourse? Is it even possible? Has it actually never been possible?