"Bush campaign ads using team"

[Occhidiangela]

The leadership in both parties, to show that they are different from the other guy, seem to have to adopt the rhetoric of the extreme factions within their parties since the centrists in both parties have quite a bit in common. This need to differentiate colors the rhetoric. One then has to choose a style, and it seems that the influence of corporate America is felt in both parties, along with a handy dose of Joseph Goebels: make the other guy look bad rather than focusing on what is good about you.

Along with the choice of style is how the media reports and covers political activity for their own ends and aims at larger market share.

The mass media organs seem convinced, rightly or wrongly, that they are dealing with short attention span audiences. Within that framework, reductionist rhetoric is the word of the day. A slogan is fine to draw attention to a particular platform (remember the "It's the economy stupid" line used by a group who then signed NAFTA and kept up the already slow hemoraging -- Perot's "Sucking Sound" -- of labor demand from US locales.) The trouble is, slogans do not often represent deep thought. Anymore, they seem to be like a deflector shield aimed at preventing "the follow on question."

So even if the educational standards are improved, and the general level of critical thinking is raised, the media organs won't change unless there is a compelling reason to drive their leadership to change both their guiding principles, and their agendas, in order to continue to pipe information via all transmission means available.

The message will need to come to them, forcefully, from their viewing and listening public. We will get what we will put up with, with "we" being the global media audience.

Occhi