Quote:
Originally Posted by Moniker42  It's not the public. The public has no say in the elections. The media tells the public what's happening, and the media is controlled by all the corporations. Watch Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and the Media for more on that if you don't believe me. |
That's an interesting point ... I'll try to read the book when I get some time.
I wonder though, doesn't the buck rest on the public ultimately? Would the same lame tricks fly (repeatedly!!!) if everyone were as skeptical as Noam Chomsky? IMO, the media coverage is like something out of a Jerry Springer show. If there was no audience, there would be no show.
IMO, if an incompetent official is elected, it's because the voters are incompetent and unable to conduct a fair job interview.
I think blaming the media circus, or corporate funding are secondary problems. If the public were smarter, they would demand more transparency on these matters. Or for example, why don't we go to the candidate's websites rather than forcing them to run expensive smear campaings every 15 minutes on national television? A large part of the expensive of running a campaign is caused by the sheer laziness of the public ... the expectation to be spoon fed pre-digested information via popular media (between humour and catchy songs).
If a real job interview were conducted with such incompetence unprofessionalism, it might easily result in a lawsuit.
