Politics as a Platform for Anger

My example in my March 15^th post of Sarah Palin’s use of vitriolic rhetoric and the potential repercussions that the propaganda spurred is just one example of the “violent anger in modern American political discourse” (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=202836) that is apparent in the media today. It would be unfair to hold Sarah Palin to a higher standard than the rest of her peers in the political arena who consistently use hateful, violent or inappropriate tactics in their campaigns.

Dr. Jim Taylor from the Huffington Post puts the current situation in American media this way:

Gone are the days of passionate though reasoned discourse and respectful disagreement. Where the focus was on the common good, practical solutions, and where differences could be worked out and compromises reached. Welcome to the mixed martial arts cage matches of our modern political culture in which, on television, radio, the Web, and in the once hallowed halls of government, it is no-holds-barred and anything goes. Where the focus is on self-interest, ideology, and demonization of those with whom we disagree. And where the tone is angry, mean-spirited, dogmatic, insulting, and profoundly disrespectful. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/is-the-anger-in-american_b_592844.html)

Dr. Taylor pinpoints the fact that really “anything goes” in today’s media. I think that this can be attributed to the fact that unlike in the olden days (i.e. the days before the Internet aka the Stone Ages), now every “average Joe” has an instant platform from which to speak his mind.  The location for political discussion has changed completely. Almost all of the 2008 presidential candidates were members of Facebook and MySpace, and they regularly uploaded campaign videos onto YouTube. (pg. 434 Media Now). These locations all allow for anyone to comment and there is little amount of regulation for the content of the pages and videos.

In the following video, opinion leaders on both sides of the political spectrum admit that the violent climate of much of today’s political media is inappropriate and that something needs to change.

One quote from the clip that I find especially insightful is this one: “[violent rhetoric] may be constitutionally permissible, but it shouldn’t be acceptable rhetoric.” There are standards above and beyond simply the Constitution that the media should hold to if we want the climate to change… But can we reasonably expect this to happen? This would mean that individuals (since much of today’s online media is posted with just a click from someone’s personal computer) would each have to hold themselves or be held to some standard. So can a change be made? If so, how do you think we are to accomplish this change?