Why do we hate Sarah Palin?
There's an interesting piece by Newsweek blogger Michael Scherer about Sarah Palin's recent hiring as a Fox News commentator. Scherer claims that Roger Ailes -- head of Fox News, former political consultant to Nixon, Reagan and Bush #I -- is a "genius" because while his peers hire on-air talent on the basis of their abilities (debatable, but OK), "Ailes knows you can also hire talent for who they anger, who they unite and what they represent... Ailes had not hired another talking head in Palin. He had hired a mascot for Fox News, a living breathing symbol of all that the network hopes to be: a place for the forgotten, besieged, suburban and rural American middle, long victimized, often dismissed, beset on all sides by elites and liberals, haters and foes." In reference to "60 Minutes," Palin herself is quoted as saying, "More and more Americans are looking at some of these networks, that biased journalism, and saying, 'Nah, that gig is up. We're not believing that stuff anymore.' That's why they are tuning into Fox News."
The scary thing? I think Scherer is unfortunately right about Ailes and Palin, and even Palin herself is partly correct. Not about "other" networks being biased (though you could fairly say that about both Fox and its liberal counterpart, MS-NBC), but about people "not believing that stuff." The core of the problem, I think, is that the vast majority people on both sides of the political spectrum and everywhere in between have a hard time separating fact from opinion. Someone on TV or the web says something, and if it strikes an emotional chord with the viewer, they'll disregard whether or not the supporting facts cited -- if any -- are true. Then they scream that the other side is distorting or disregarding facts that support their own view.
The reader comments on Scherer's post are very illuminating. Many of them concern the issue of elitism vs. populism, and what it means to be elitist:
The scary thing? I think Scherer is unfortunately right about Ailes and Palin, and even Palin herself is partly correct. Not about "other" networks being biased (though you could fairly say that about both Fox and its liberal counterpart, MS-NBC), but about people "not believing that stuff." The core of the problem, I think, is that the vast majority people on both sides of the political spectrum and everywhere in between have a hard time separating fact from opinion. Someone on TV or the web says something, and if it strikes an emotional chord with the viewer, they'll disregard whether or not the supporting facts cited -- if any -- are true. Then they scream that the other side is distorting or disregarding facts that support their own view.
The reader comments on Scherer's post are very illuminating. Many of them concern the issue of elitism vs. populism, and what it means to be elitist:
- "It's very easy to make fun of Sarah Palin. But in a world where it's still acceptable to put down intelligence as arrogance and embrace ignorance as a virtue, she's going to find an audience." (#18)
- "I'd have a lot more sympathy toward [the conservative] notion that there's more than one sort of 'intelligence' if you guys didn't routinely say things that were demonstrably false. We can think of torture or attitudes toward the Muslim world or even opinions on health care or economics as different moral choices or different viewpoints. But let the subject turn to climate change or evolution and all of the sudden brilliant flashes of absolute stupidity emerge for all to see." (#18.4)
(This goes along with my belief that people can blithely ignore scientific data when it doesn't support their "gut feeling" on an issue.)
- "What is it about [Palin] that turns the media's faces purple with rage? She's a populist, has a nasally Fargo sounding voice and isn't terribly informed. But does this explain the vitriol? No. I think there's more. As an independent (and one who would not vote for Palin), I've about come to the conclusion that Palin is just too common for media elites... She's just too white, too folksy and too churchy to ever fit in the club." (#31)
He's saying that the media, whom the right disparage as being liberally biased and elitist, hate Palin because she's a conservative populist. This assumes that "elitism" is (a) bad, and (b) politically left. So what exactly is an elitist? Wikipedia says elitists are "a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes... whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight."
Translation: paying attention to the experts in a given area is bad. Scientists are elitist so we shouldn't listen to them about global warming. Politicians with experience in government and perhaps a law degree are elitist -- but we should only ignore those on the left. Michael Jordan is an elitist in basketball so we shouldn't listen to anything he has to say about the sport. I don't know... I think I'd want an elitist physician if I had cancer and an elitist pilot flying my plane, so why wouldn't I also want to read the work of an elitist member of the media -- meaning someone with knowledge, training and experience in writing about national issues? Sure, I'll read George Will and William F. Buckley, because they have a large fund of knowledge and experience they draw on in their writing. But I guess they're also elitist, because they have excellent educations from elitist institutions and know a lot of stuff from reading things and talking to a lot of people. So yeah, I'm an elitist. To echo the first reader comment, when did this become a bad thing and why? Is it just jealousy on the part of non-elitists? Or maybe anger at what they see as elitists' arrogance? I can buy that, though the right-wingers in my view are usually a lot more arrogant as they spew their disdain and outright hatred.
Bottom line: what happened to reasoned debate and respect for knowledge cited in those debates? What happened to the reverence for education in this country? There's a difference between ignorance (lack of info) and stupidity (low ability to acquire info, or attitude that ignorance doesn't matter).
Reader comment #25: "Sadly, the collective IQ and thirst for truth is at an all-time low in the U.S. and the bar continues to be lowered every day."
Translation: paying attention to the experts in a given area is bad. Scientists are elitist so we shouldn't listen to them about global warming. Politicians with experience in government and perhaps a law degree are elitist -- but we should only ignore those on the left. Michael Jordan is an elitist in basketball so we shouldn't listen to anything he has to say about the sport. I don't know... I think I'd want an elitist physician if I had cancer and an elitist pilot flying my plane, so why wouldn't I also want to read the work of an elitist member of the media -- meaning someone with knowledge, training and experience in writing about national issues? Sure, I'll read George Will and William F. Buckley, because they have a large fund of knowledge and experience they draw on in their writing. But I guess they're also elitist, because they have excellent educations from elitist institutions and know a lot of stuff from reading things and talking to a lot of people. So yeah, I'm an elitist. To echo the first reader comment, when did this become a bad thing and why? Is it just jealousy on the part of non-elitists? Or maybe anger at what they see as elitists' arrogance? I can buy that, though the right-wingers in my view are usually a lot more arrogant as they spew their disdain and outright hatred.
Bottom line: what happened to reasoned debate and respect for knowledge cited in those debates? What happened to the reverence for education in this country? There's a difference between ignorance (lack of info) and stupidity (low ability to acquire info, or attitude that ignorance doesn't matter).
Reader comment #25: "Sadly, the collective IQ and thirst for truth is at an all-time low in the U.S. and the bar continues to be lowered every day."
Comments