3 ms·
I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice. The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because
by pstuart 23d ago
I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice.
The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time.
Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote.
Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.
- GJim 23d ago> it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy. Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.
- pstuart 22d agoBroadcast media is boomer stuff (disclaimer: I am technically a boomer). I expect its relevance to fade. That said, the failure to prevent media aggregation (e.g., Sinclair et al) is also a betrayal to the people. As a boomer, I recognize the value of having constrained media choices: it was a unifying factor albeit at the price of milquetoast and "establishment" programming. Everything has a price... The fairness doctrine should have been employed when Rush Limbaugh started his hate speech career that aimed to literally demonize half the population.