|
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Alterman's relative objectivity is crucial because his topic is so important: public opinion in the United States is often shaped by clever phrases, memorable sound bites, and comfortable beliefs spouted into popular culture via broadcast or written media. Alterman's contention is that conventional beliefs are molded and common sense is formed in large measure through the influence of observers who are more famous than informed.
Pundits rule America, the author argues, by constructing and maintaining "informed opinion" that marginalizes alternative perspectives left and right. Commentators narrow the possibilities and discount the imponderables, thereby deepening troughs in the stream where the opinion-shapers feel most comfortable. If these spinmeisters succeed in moving this or that trough closer to the opinions fashionable in their own circles, so much the better. Their most important goal, however, is to preserve, protect, and defend the mass-mediated mainstream in which they are reckoned to be authoritative.
This "dredging" narrows the diversity of acceptable facts, beliefs, perspectives, and insights that will be carried in mass media. As a consequence, novel critiques, original thinking, and perceptive syntheses usually cannot penetrate sequences of fabricated, exaggerated threats and reassurances that characterize everyday debates on television, the Internet, or radio and in newspapers and periodicals. This conventional wisdom tended by the pundits not only amplifyies the problem that so many ordinary Americans know little about politics, government, their own country, and the world but also exacerbates the difficulty that so many people who trouble themselves to follow the news know so much that is not true.
Alterman deftly describes and documents how pundits set themselves up as experts by making themselves well known for being well known (to steal Daniel Boorstin's phrase). Many of them know a little about a little. Through marketing and self-promotion, they pose as knowing much about nearly everything. The reader is first amused and then amazed at how little it takes for this columnist or that essayist to become a frequent guest on chatfests. The more that the pundit pretends to know without actually risking his or her "authority" (often pundits have no "authority" in any subject to begin with; they have merely recognition or notoriety) and the more memorable their snappy patter, the more invitations that television is likely to extend. If you have wondered how Alec Baldwin or Martin Sheen or Ann Coulter or Peggy Noonan came to populate cable "news" shows, this book will suggest some plausible hypothesies.
When Alterman documents how succinct phrases and other arts of punditry actually clash with genuine knowledge and merited authority, the reader begins to appreciate how the sound and fury of these media creations have diminished politics and impoverished discourse.
P.S. Does anyone else suspect that the customer review from "A reader from Alexandria, VA USA" was crafted by some lefty to imply that one who disliked Alterman's book due to Alterman's writing would himself or herself write so poorly?
The real interest for me was the details on the television personalities. Even though this book was written in 92, many of the same people are still the pundits stars now. The author has a sharp wit, which he uses with deviating effect on these masters of the sound bite. He takes on each of the pundits and gives you his opinion and all the gossip that is fit to print. He comments run from sharp to down right nasty. For some reason this author has a rather large chip on his shoulder and is not shy about venting his dislike via this book. He also lets many of his personal political views slide into the writing, at times I think he really wanted to do a review of Reagan / Bush presidencies.