Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekneek
I have to say, you cannot be informed about what is happening in the world if you aren't reading any newspapers or magazines (at that level).
|
I'd disagree in that what they give you is their slant - good, bad, indifferent - on what's happening in the world. And with a subtext of whatever they'd like you to think/believe about topic X.
Quote:
|
It seems as if you think the magazine part refers to rags like People.
|
No, and you'll have to trust me, that's not it at all. I get what Couric was shooting for, I just draw a different conclusion to their relevance.
Quote:
|
That she had no idea what she reads to stay informed, means to me that she reads NOTHING to stay informed. I find it to be a very relevant conversation.
|
Will you at least grant me that I'm current on topics at a rate ahead of the general population of 50% +1? Screw what my take on them is for this purpose, just that I'm aware of the existence of issues X, Y, Z? If not then you can ignore the rest of this because you kind of have to accept that stipulation for this point to work. If so, then let's carry on to the point.
How is it possible that I'm fairly aware of the issues at hand but can't tell you what magazine I read last? Or that I can't name a single magazine I read on a regular basis? The sheer number of sources available plus the incredible accessibility of information in today's multimedia not only means there's a lot out there but that there's also less brand awareness than probably ever before. Did I read article X on ajc.com, onlineathens.com, or latimes.com? Who the fuck knows, the content was largely the same regardless of the source. Did something come from The Heritage Foundation or The Cato Institute or The National Review? Hell if I know, once I've vetted the source to my own satisfaction then the specifics of where it came from matter only insofar as someone needs me to point them to a copy and a little Googling tends to turn that up.
The other thing that I'm starting to sense here is what I kidded RainMaker about earlier in the thread: a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs/thoughts/ideas.
I'm quite well behind the concept of taking relevant input into a situation -- i.e. give me everything you've got about the status of North Korea's governmental stability, weapons/military capability, detailed economic situation, cultural interpretations of various stimuli, etc, etc, and et al -- but at the end of the day, those inputs combined with what should be simple common sense to determine a course or courses of action concerning them. I don't doubt my ability to grasp whatever information is relevant to a given situation, I don't believe Palin does either (and I suspect that's a portion of her appeal as well), but sincerely believe that more often than not the general direction of what to do/where to aim is reasonably obvious & then it becomes a matter of tweaking those to fit as well as possible to at least move in the desired direction.
In short, it's not all brain surgery. Now ask yourself another question or two: How often does a voter find themselves thinking "damn, how stupid does a politician have to be to get ISSUE X wrong?". And how often is that same stupid politician carrying one or more degrees, three allegedly intellectual magazines in their briefcase, and a staff of speechwriters (and/or lobbyists) still needed to make them sound like they have even the slightest clue? Combine the correct answers to those questions & you'll see where the magazine flap is a non-issue for a lot of us.