August 05, 2006 (1): "Reasoning between Informed Participants"

Truthdig has initiated an interesting discussion on a column about the approach the press has been taking to reporting the role of fundamentalism in Bush's policies. This discussion included, among other items, a comment by Hilding Lindquist that "voting is the packaging that comes with the gift of reasoning between informed participants." I voiced a slightly contrary opinion that I would like to elaborate on here.

My own position is that the best packaging for the "reasoning between informed participants" is consensus. It is through consensus that we recognize the need to both make a decision and honor the differences of opinion behind that decision. The extent to which Americans still believe that consensus is more important than voting results is reflected in the study conducted by Pew Forum study on Religion & Public Life, recently reported in "The Raw Story." Here is the important quote from that study:

Abortion continues to split the country nearly down the middle. But the large majority in favor of finding 'a middle ground' on the issue extends broadly across the political and religious spectrum. Only one group expressed unwillingness to find a middle way. Two-thirds (66%) of those who support an outright ban on abortion say there should be no compromise. In contrast, two-thirds of those who want abortion to be generally available are ready to seek a compromise.

This gets me back to my current inclination to bash mass media. The mass media are not interested in consensus, because consensus does not sell stuff. Ultimately, the marketplace is all about voting--choosing one product over another. So it is only natural that the media are going to report in a way that encourages a mind-set that favors electoral choice (voting with your pocketbook, as it were) over consensus. Folks of my age were probably first aware of this during the Kennedy-Nixon debates; but I am sure that the influence of the market mentality on the reporting of political matters goes back much further than that.

This takes us back to the hypothesis that our problem is not that America is not a population of "informed participants" but that the mass media are doing everything they can to keep them from being "informed participants!"