- ‹ previous
- 295 of 2798
- next ›
How Crazy Are We?
Do baseball players make a greater number of spectacular plays than they did 30 years ago? Of course not. It just seems like it because ESPN packages them all up for us every evening on SportsCenter. 
These days, we get to see every spectacular play, not just the ones in the games we happen to watch.
David Post calls this the ESPN Effect and wonders if it applies to politics:
All I hear from my left-leaning friends these days is how crazy people on the right are becoming, and all all I hear from my right-leaning friends is how crazy people on the left are becoming, and everyone, on both sides, seems very eager to provide evidence of the utter lunacy of those on the other side. “Look how crazy they’re becoming over there, on the other side!” is becoming something of a dominant trope, on left and right. It is true that we’re seeing more crazy people doing crazy things on the other side (whichever side that may be, for you) coming across our eyeballs these days. But that’s all filtered reality; it bears no more relationship to reality than the Sportscenter highlights bear to the game of baseball.
My very, very strong suspicion is that there has never been a time when there weren’t truly crazy people on all sides of the political spectrum doing their truly crazy things. Maybe 1% or so, or even 0.1% — which is a very large number, when you’re talking about a population of, say, 100 million. They didn’t get through the filters much in the Old Days, but they do now. All this talk about how extreme “the debate” is becoming — how, exactly, does anyone get a bead on what “the debate” really is? In reality?
Is he right? Are Fox News and Twitter and the blogosphere and talk radio the collective SportsCenter of politics? Or are people really crazier than they used to be?
Or is it even worse than that? SportsCenter mostly just records what happens. (It might also play an active role in producing more spectacular plays because players are eager to make the night's highlight reel, but that's a small effect.) But in politics it's worse. Not only might people act crazier in order to get on the news, but seeing all those crazy people might drive the rest of us crazier too. So maybe at first this was just the ESPN Effect, but over time it became a vicious circle and now there really are more crazy people around. I sure feel crazier these days. How about you?
its an interesting idea
and I think partly true. The media filter favors extremist views for the sake of ratings, so we do tend to see much more crazy than is represented in the general population. The difference in politics vs sports is that seeing a bunch of awesome plays on espn doesn't get more people to go out and make more awesome plays. After watching Lebron dunk, I still can't dunk. However, seeing a bunch of crazies (both regular folks and glen beck commentator types) creates a reinforcing feedback loop. When a regular old conservative republican hears teabaggers and beck and limbaugh say Obama is a nazi who wants to take their gun, kill their grandma and put them in internment camps then that regular old conservative starts to believe those very crazy ideas. There's a bunch of research on how once someone is told something, even if its demonstrably false, its very difficult to get them to give up that belief. So yes the media filter is a source of the problem, but the problem is much broader and very different from the ESPN effect.
This is News?
I thought this was so obvious as to be self evident. News and entertainment in the popular media merged long ago; it's only natural that they should report on the extremes and ignore the vast middle.
Conservatives have done a much better job of exploiting this trend. Using talk radio, then cable TV, and now the internet, conservatives have used the voices on the extreme right to move the accepted center of the political spectrum further to the right. Liberals, on the other hand, have treated those on the far left as an embarrassment, and effectively ostracized them.
Lefties may have the last laugh however, as the far right takeover of the Republican party has left the Democratic party as the only refuge for centrists.
I don't recall large numbers
I don't recall large numbers of politicians being completely insane in the past. The speed with which national republican officeholders adopt nonsense is amazing.
There is something here
There is something here called the "magnifying effect". When ordinary buffers fail and civic information degrades, the outliers and extremists have a greater impact on the overall discourse. Worse, the equilibrium shifts to account for the added noise. That's why the right is disporportionately powerful today in relation to their numbers. It would be one thing if the left were matching the right blow to blow. But the left isn't. Their absence of media megaphones has neutralized them.
I think that Post's analogy
I think that Post's analogy is somewhat compelling, but it falls when you consider the role of the presenters. For the Sportscenter presenters, the spectacular plays are the really important ones because they determine the result of the games. Runs are the sole metric that determines the success of the team (which is what the sports news is), and given that you can't show them all, it makes sense to show the more amazing or dramatic ones.
For the news, it shouldn't work like that. What is actually important are the issues and policies and how they are enacted. However, because of the commercial basis of the news industry, there is no financial incentive to report on any of that stuff, since it gets less ratings than someone acting crazy. So it's not as if the spectacular events/speeches have anything to do with the "results," as they do in sports.
Basically we are being betrayed by a news media that have decided to act more like Sportscenter announcers than newsmen.
plausible, but let's also see the evidence
This is a plausible hypothesis, and I'd even agree that it is part of what we are seeing. It's particularly a problem when we take individual's craziness to stand in for the whole of a group or movement.
But, I'm skeptical that sampling bias alone can explain what we have seen. It is true that our perspective tends to make the present seem distinct from the past. Yet it sometimes is. Sure, things got nasty in the 1790s and 1850s. But I believe that there has been a qualitative shift, that the environment (media, social networking, connectivity) has abetted a qualitative shift in the public discourse that includes a good dose of the crazy. Post writes "everyone, on both sides, seems very eager to provide evidence of the utter lunacy of those on the other side". I say, let's see the evidence from both sides, lay it out and compare the cases. My bet is that the evidence of greater, deeper, more comprehensive craziness will be clear cut. While there are certainly individuals on both sides as crazy as anyone, the Republican party -- elite and grassroots -- has embraced the crazy, demagogic rhetoric to what must be in at least the top few percentiles in our history. Military coups? Enemy of humanity? Working against America? Right.
I think it's a valid
I think it's a valid analogy, but maybe that's because I can't watch political TV shows anymore, not even the ones that I theoretically agree with. It's just fucking morons hollering at each other. Turn off the sound and they all look like gibbering idiots. Turn on the sound and that's what they sound like, too.
And they wouldn't broadcast this crap if there wasn't an audience for it. We as a collective polity are becoming stupider and more militant/crazy at the same time.
Good night, and good luck.
bad premises?
First of all, I'm not sure either of his premises -- that sports fans think there are more spectacular plays than there used to be, and that people think there hasn't always been a lunatic fringe -- are true. I certainly don't think the former is true (though a case could be made that increased athleticism in baseball makes spectacular catches more likely, and we know spectacular home runs are more likely now than in the various dead ball eras), and much of the commentary about the teabaggers, for instance, has included references to groups like the Birch Society.
What's different about the current situation is that the Birch Society never had its own major political party. Those people may have been extreme conservatives, and some of them may have been Democrats or Republicans, but none of them had the mid-20th century equivalent of Orrin Hatch grovelling before them. Now certainly, having their own news networks helps as well, as does having a press corps that, in general, goes out of its way to take seriously the incredibly unserious things this movement says. But if there were any prominent Republicans who were not openly sympathetic to the teabagging fringe, we would not be where we are.
Actually, there are more
Actually, there are more spectacular plays being made today than in previous decades. Athletes today are bigger, stronger, and better trained than at any time in history. At the same time each of the major leagues has more teams and therefore more games played than at any time in history. Finally, because spectacular plays were not highlighted in the same way in the past, the incentive to make, not just good, but spectacular plays is greater.
The first two features might not apply to politics but the third certainly does. If you are a politician and want to get press coverage, it helps to push the boundaries a bit. As those boundaries are stretched what qualifies as extreme also becomes redefined. Although there have always been crazies I don't think their visibility in our discourse has always been the same.
Probably true
Certainly I've had the experience of seeing the right's coverage of the left's supposed lunatic fringe, finding it silly, and wondering exactly how accurate my own perception of the crazies on the right might be. I suspect that the right is, objectively speaking, somewhat crazier -- as determined by prevalence of certain extreme views -- but not by a whole lot.
Whenever I think things are
Whenever I think things are getting out of control, I turn to reading history. The Magnificent Catastrophe, about the election of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams, was pretty ugly, and the shenanigans outlined in Fraud of the Century, about the 1876 election were amazing.
It's a cycle, but...
Compare them to the left in the late '60s/early '70s, and most of what the right is currently doing doesn't seem all that crazy. Nixon caught flack from singers invited to the White House, from NCAA Hoops champs, all the traditional "respect for the office" stuff got tossed out. And, of course, a bit of rudeness in the WH was nothing compared to the Weatherman, Black Panther crowd on the far left.
Look back a little bit further to the white south in 1950s/early 60s and even the demonstrations of the '60s anti-war crowd seem pretty tame. You have entire state governments seriously contesting court actions.
So there's some truth to the ESPN thing, we aren't nearly as crazy these days as we've been in the recent past. It's not just the MSM, there's an awful lot of blogs out there on both the right and left dedicated to ferreting out the craziness on the other side, and so people have a skewed vision of things.
What's incredibly weird about all of it though is that not much is actually going on. Integration really was a major change to the southern lifestyle, Vietnam was an serious personal concern to the youth of the day. Today, the right goes nuts and screams socialism if the tax rates might move a point or two. It's bizarre.
"I think it's a valid
"I think it's a valid analogy, but maybe that's because I can't watch political TV shows anymore, not even the ones that I theoretically agree with. It's just fucking morons hollering at each other."
Yeah, I first noticed this years ago with Hardball and The McLaughlin Group, eventually I noticed it affected all political shows. George Stephanopoulis harassing Obama about wearing a flag pin was the last straw. I haven't watched a political tv show since.
There may have always been
There may have always been crazy people, but this is a question of to what extent those crazies are brought inside the tent and even given a forum to address the crowds. I see this happening on the right, but not on the left. So it's false equivalency 101 and what else is new?
Furthermore, who exactly are these crazy people on the left? Anti-war advocates? What's so crazy about that? Anti-globalization radical youth? Maybe, but that only underscores how much they are not being brought into the tent. I'm not seeing any other good candidates.
Takes work, but I think he's
Takes work, but I think he's a lazy and basically frightened fence-sitter, and it's a piece of shit as commentary. Anti-war vs. death panels? Slightly increased top marginal tax rate or private-insurer-based healthcare as creeping socialism? Environmental or labor standards in trade rules?
There has been no genuine left since the abject surrender of a command economy as a feasible alternative. Do the side-by-side and see.
P.S. Kevin -- You are NOT
P.S. Kevin -- You are NOT equally crazy as Michele Malkin or Rush Limbaugh.
beloved public personalities
The democratic ideal of mob rule enables the crazies to become beloved public personalities.
The system selects for
The system selects for crazy. In short, crazy sells. Seducing us to go for it trumps our rationalizing restraints. It may seem counterproductive, but our economy has been built on people doing a lot of crazy shit. The world is just batshit insane.
Three things
First, as others noted above, plays are more spectacular today than years ago. A couple of days ago, I watched career highlights of Pete Maravich. Now Maravich was a lights-out, unbelievable player, but the best plays of his entire life wouldn't touch what Jason Kidd does in a half-season. When Maravich played, a behind the back dribble was flashy and considered bad basketball. Now it is a standard part of a player's repertoire.
Second, I've been watching politics for forty years now and never - never! - has a mainstream, national political figure implied that the president was a Nazi or a fascist or that an opposing party's proposal included a death panel. This stuff isn't coming from bottom of the comments by winger999, it's coming from Senators and Governors.
Third, the idea falls into the false equivalency trap. The lunacy is coming from the leading figures on the right, not the leading figures on the left. There were no leading politicians on the left doing anything to George Bush remotely close to what pro-birther legislators are doing.
One of the fascinating things in the birth of the blog was watching reasonable liberals like Kevin and Josh Marshall spend years trying to apply even-handed analysis to policy debates like tax law and the Iraq war for months and months before concluding that the right wing had no reasonable sane commentary, only demagoguery.
Good
Like what you said, RZ.
A Sane Solution
I say we solve this all with a brawl. I will provide Guiness to all members of congress and let them fight it out. Being a fighting liberal, just standing up and kicking their asses once and for all would be great. Imagine Ensign calling his daddy for help on a cell phone, or Boehner fearing damage to his "tan". As Rockefeller smacks McConnell we can all sing "Pop goes the weasel", and when Cantor pleads for mercy we can offer him charitable care. For good measure we should throw in the "talking heads" from both sides for good measure (imagine the anxiety of hair being out of place).
I'm a little late to the party...
But isn't this the central premise behind "Idiot America" by Charles Pierce?
The more graphic, the more
The more graphic, the more dramatic. That's why they don't show the really gory pictures to juries--too prejudicial. We've gone from B&W TV to color to HiDef.
The right seems more strident today because until Rush, radio talk, and Internet outlets lefties had a virtual monopoly on the "news." The left was just as loony, but got a pass because the press was in bed with FDR, LBJ, JFK, and their ilk. FDR with his packing of the Supreme Court and lust for war was a bigger jerk than Bush. The left wing press never would have let a Republican get away with the stuff the libertine and Mafia groupie JFK did. Let Nixon get away with sharing a girlfriend with Sam "Momo" Giancana? The loony Bond-like Operation Mongoose? Pretending to face down Kruschev in "Cuber" like a macho stud while actually bargaining away our missiles in Turkey? Not on yer tintype.
Later
I don't want to be caught in the same thread with Luther. Bye.
More False Equivalency
In the eight years he was president, George Bush lied the nation into a war, instituted a torture regime, and illegally spied on American citizens. These are not opinions; they are facts. And yet, while many on the left justifiably called for Bush's impeachment, I do not recall any websites hosting polls asking whether he should be assassinated, nor do I recall liberal publications ruminating on the positives of a military coup. To suggest there is any equivalency - in prevalence, volume, or tone - in the "crazy" factor on the right versus that on the left is dishonest in the extreme and only further damages our political discourse.
these are crazy times
A majority of Republicans believe that the world's scientists are coordinating a gigantic conspiracy to sell the false doctrine of climate disruption to an unsuspecting public, in order to stamp out freedom and usher in an era of socialism. QED.
What if past crazy stuff was still happening today?
Take, uh, slavery, for instance. Crazy enough for you? What would be presented by the media? Here is a thought experiment.
What would the United States look like if the South had won the Civil War, slavery was still legal and liberals had fled to Canada? Specifically, what would it look like in a contemporary America as presented by contemporary media?
Check out this mocumentary set in a modern-day Confederate States of America.
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/CSA_Confederate_States_of_America/70043426
One thing I've noticed with
One thing I've noticed with more of my reading coming from blogs is that I'm generally more aware of outrageous things that people in the outgroup say. If it weren't for blogs, I wouldn't have been aware of one of my professors claiming that Tookie Willams and Martinn Luther King, Jr. were kindred spirits.
Similarly, I don't think most MoJo readers would see much of Ann Coulter's or Michelle Malkin's writings if it weren't for links to their sites saying, in effect, "look at what this crazy nitwit posted on the Intertubes this week".
Come to think of it, most of my links to these people come from the left-leaning blogs I read—not from the right-leaning ones.
left/right games
they're both going to remain "crazy" until they quit thinking inside the left/right box, or paradigm, there's not much difference between the last admin and the new, really, i wish people would get a life and wake up, it's all about control
replica watch
lves. copy iwc watch Which is why Seiko imitation for the Liar Baume & Mercier imitation issue, I think fake iwc watch it is just Oris replicas as important to Cartier Tank Divan Pink Mini Ladies Watch W6301455 ask “what am A Lange & Sohne imitation I doing?” as replica watches to react to Corum replicas the specific book Glashutte imitation and publisher.While the Tissot T-Touch Steel AnalogDigital Multifunction Orange Mens Watch T33.1.598.59 replicas current discussion is Rolex GMT-Master II imitation focused more on replica watch YA literature, this replica watch market is an issue replica watch with books for Dashboard duplicate children and youth replica watches of all ages. replica Breitling As an organization Longines replicas serving Rado Sintra Ladies Watch R13334732 replicas
ESPN has a great role to
ESPN has a great role to enrich more spectacular plays which was unthinkable thirty years ago. Yes, I agree that politician are crazier then anyone else. They think only focus on them.