So the combined effect is to appear ridiculous--a desperate person saying silly things--like a street person handing out pamphlets. In other words, a joke. I don't know if producers consciously devise these situations in order to "discredit" dissent--as if they care. But surely they recognize the circus effect created by these kinds of interactions, with the dissident reliably playing the clown.
--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] um, cass sunnstein? To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 3:12 PM
On Sep 8, 2009, at 4:04 PM, Dennis Perrin wrote:
> As Noam has suggested, and I think that O'R and others largely prove, inviting dissidents to appear on camera while maintaining existing media filters is an effective way to discredit dissent. O'R's not interested in "genuine engagement" -- he's tossing red meat to his audience, as any serious entertainer would. Watch some of Bob Hope's Vietnam shows to see a more extreme version of this.
How's that? O'Reilly has spirited arguments with his guests. If they're good at it, they can give him a run for his money - of course, you have to be aggressive and resist his talking over you. But allowing people to speak their minds on TV - how exactly does that discredit dissent? ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk