The State Of Political Discussion In The United States
When we talk about political discussion, we are forced to say that most of us are disappointed with what passes as deliberate examination of issues. We hear these on the TV, radio and read them in the print media whether on line or off. The dirty politics and the slinging of mud is all that we get for our attention.
Members of both major parties and those in lessor parties simply cannot be counted on to provide honest commentary. They involve themselves in broad generalizations and gotcha comments and questions. The mainstream simply takes one side, or the other, without fact checking.
When faced with a charge from one side, the other side deflects the issue and insults the person making the statement. A conversation is not possible if they, both, do not accept the idea that an actual conversation must have at least two sides participating. This is frustrating for people who would like to have something resolved.
When one side can not discuss many things because of the correctness they impose on speech and the need for the other side to try to get along with them makes for many misunderstandings. The discourse goes off track and nothing is actually discussed. The mud slinging that erupts from this does not give any helpful information and nobody is the wiser for it.
The debates do not hold the attention of many of the people interested in watching or hearing them. This is due to the hosts that will take up for the side they feel they want to help. This does not allow for the balance that is needed during any of these, supposedly, honest give and take sessions.
The things that can be done to accomplish true political discussion would be to make the debates actual debates. The honest discourse that can be discovered, in this way, could enable the watchers to know about the issues. Another idea is to require the press to report things that are done or said, like they are supposed too, and not try to take sides.
Members of both major parties and those in lessor parties simply cannot be counted on to provide honest commentary. They involve themselves in broad generalizations and gotcha comments and questions. The mainstream simply takes one side, or the other, without fact checking.
When faced with a charge from one side, the other side deflects the issue and insults the person making the statement. A conversation is not possible if they, both, do not accept the idea that an actual conversation must have at least two sides participating. This is frustrating for people who would like to have something resolved.
When one side can not discuss many things because of the correctness they impose on speech and the need for the other side to try to get along with them makes for many misunderstandings. The discourse goes off track and nothing is actually discussed. The mud slinging that erupts from this does not give any helpful information and nobody is the wiser for it.
The debates do not hold the attention of many of the people interested in watching or hearing them. This is due to the hosts that will take up for the side they feel they want to help. This does not allow for the balance that is needed during any of these, supposedly, honest give and take sessions.
The things that can be done to accomplish true political discussion would be to make the debates actual debates. The honest discourse that can be discovered, in this way, could enable the watchers to know about the issues. Another idea is to require the press to report things that are done or said, like they are supposed too, and not try to take sides.
