When Trump was elected, I told many friends and acquaintances that the people had spoken. What had they said? They are tired of politics as usual and want change. Unfortunately, the media in this country does not want change, they want ratings and conflict and the status quo seems to help them achieve those ratings. In your opinion, how does the media play into the above?
Of course, it is only some of the people. Probably, we need to keep that in mind. And one needs to do the heavy lifting (which most of us haven't) to check the extent that Trump really answered the needs, i.e. made the changes that his voters expected.
My point is that their grievances were real and we fail to understand the nature of Trump support by seeing people as "racist," etc. In fact, I would argue that we resort to accusing "the other" only when our wellbeing has been seriously eroded. That is, overt racist attitudes, and all identities, are responses to life threatening personal realities.
That said, I think we can agree that politics as usual continued, because of or in spite of Trump's victory. As to the media, they are as you said advertising driven, i.e. they put on a show. Conflict helps them. Status quo perhaps less. I.e. they don't report that the sun is shining today. But I never forget that for all their assumptions of doing the public good, they are activities of large corporations and for their "bosses" the status quo is a good.
The point I want to make is that politics is always a bridge between those in government and those in the economic and social world that want (or need) things that they feel can be provided by government. And there is conflict in terms of what they want. Long term vs. short term. Rent takers (an economic concept meaning those that are able to gain wealth without "earning" it), credit holders and debtors, workers and management, and so on. I think that infrastructure is an interesting area to study. The goals are long term and short term. Long term a better future economy, short term jobs. Nor are the costs and benefits easily aligned at any given point in time.
But also and finally, I like to point out that our intellectual limitations (our ideologies) condition what we think is right and possible and desirable. And each of these "right," "possible," "desirable" is subject to a reading of the scene, the rapidly changing technological and cultural world.
When Trump was elected, I told many friends and acquaintances that the people had spoken. What had they said? They are tired of politics as usual and want change. Unfortunately, the media in this country does not want change, they want ratings and conflict and the status quo seems to help them achieve those ratings. In your opinion, how does the media play into the above?
Of course, it is only some of the people. Probably, we need to keep that in mind. And one needs to do the heavy lifting (which most of us haven't) to check the extent that Trump really answered the needs, i.e. made the changes that his voters expected.
My point is that their grievances were real and we fail to understand the nature of Trump support by seeing people as "racist," etc. In fact, I would argue that we resort to accusing "the other" only when our wellbeing has been seriously eroded. That is, overt racist attitudes, and all identities, are responses to life threatening personal realities.
That said, I think we can agree that politics as usual continued, because of or in spite of Trump's victory. As to the media, they are as you said advertising driven, i.e. they put on a show. Conflict helps them. Status quo perhaps less. I.e. they don't report that the sun is shining today. But I never forget that for all their assumptions of doing the public good, they are activities of large corporations and for their "bosses" the status quo is a good.
The point I want to make is that politics is always a bridge between those in government and those in the economic and social world that want (or need) things that they feel can be provided by government. And there is conflict in terms of what they want. Long term vs. short term. Rent takers (an economic concept meaning those that are able to gain wealth without "earning" it), credit holders and debtors, workers and management, and so on. I think that infrastructure is an interesting area to study. The goals are long term and short term. Long term a better future economy, short term jobs. Nor are the costs and benefits easily aligned at any given point in time.
But also and finally, I like to point out that our intellectual limitations (our ideologies) condition what we think is right and possible and desirable. And each of these "right," "possible," "desirable" is subject to a reading of the scene, the rapidly changing technological and cultural world.