Argh

For the last 2 afternoons, I've been trying to write something in response to this article by Bill O'Reilly. (I think that link will only be good for a limited time.) His article basically points out that Americans are woefully uninformed about important issues, an goes on to blame it (partly or mostly, depending how you read it) on entertainment technology.

I'm frustrated though because I don't know exactly what I want to say, and I keep scrapping everything I've written so far. I think his article is a mess, and my reaction to it is definitely a mess.

O'Reilly mentions in passing a bunch of things that I have a lot of serious thoughts about: America's "issue illiteracy," "mind-numbing reality shows," video games, chat rooms, ipods, tabloids, and Barry Bonds. So I kind of want to work an intelligent discussion of all those topics into my response, but that would take way too long, and it would get a bit disorganized.

I think what most drove me to want to respond was his closing paragraph:

"Ultimately, mass electronic escape will lead to a very few exercising vast power over the distracted many. That, of course, is not the system the Founders envisioned. But when more votes are cast for American Idol contestants than for Presidential candidates, you know "the times, they are a changin'." And not for the better."

I'm giving up on making my thoughts look pretty, so here is a numbered list instead.

1. Don't a few pretty much always exercise vast power over many? Isn't that what civilization always is? I guess we could revert to hunter-gatherer tribes where everyone had an equal say in how to run things.
   
2. My understanding of the founding fathers' intentions was that they wouldn't let those rulers become abusive of their power, not that they wanted to keep the elite from ruling. Didn't they specifically set up the electoral college, as if to say "just in case you stupids screw something up, here are some people who should know better." The Founders just wanted to set up a system where the farmers could do their farming and not have to worry that the King is going to steal the crops or cut their head off for praying to the wrong god.
   
3. Is it changing for the worse if American Idol is more popular than politics? People have always been a lot more interested in being entertained than sweating the details of how the country runs. Is it really so suprising that as technology shrinks the world, more people pay attention to a specific entertainment source than to a specific issue that doesn't pose an immediate threat? Isn't it nice that we have something that captures our interests so completely, and that we can enjoy it in a relatively peaceful time?
   
4. The Founders envisioned a system of economic freedom where everyone was guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. Well they got it. Electronics and media corporations used their economic freedom to give people what they want, what they think will make them happy. Average Joe doesn't want to come home from a hard day of work and read up about spooky terrorist threats; he wants to watch baseball players hit homeruns. Average Joe Junior doesn't want to study geography; he wants to play Splinter Cell. Average Jane doesn't want to examine the issue of border control after she puts Joe Jr. to bed; she wants to see Taylor Hicks sing and dance like an idiot. Granted, people might be happier if they devoted more time and effort to understanding the world around them, and less time to worthless diversions, but people don't know what actually makes them happy. They don't want to do more work than they have to, and they don't want to be bored in the meantime. It would be nice if people were more educated on the issues, but is it fair to blame their ignorance on electronics?
   
5. O'Reilly barely hints at 3 factors that are much more relevant to "issue illiteracy" than his cranky luddite paranoia: culture, education, and journalism.
6. In regards to culture, O'Reilly wrote "The USA used to be a nation that valued knowledge and rallied around national standards." I agree that our culture generally doesn't value knowledge. We're more likely to make fun of a smart kid than appreciate him. This is a problem of much more concern to me than the popularity of ipods.
7. In regards to education and journalism, O'Reilly wrote

   "Our society is so intellectually undemanding that uninformed entertainers like the Dixie Chicks can comment negatively on foreign policy and be rewarded with a Time Magazine cover. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie can have a baby and receive more attention than the Senate vote on illegal immigration. And Barry Bonds can cheat his way to home run records and still command standing ovations in San Francisco."

8. Our education system sucks. Maybe if we taught people some critical thinking skills they'd be more intellectually demanding. Maybe if we taught people how to set aside emotion and evaluate a political issue they'd have more interest in illegal immigration. Maybe if we taught people about ethics they'd shun the cheaters. But we'd rather force absurd stone-age myths into science classes than actual science. We'd rather be politically correct than present facts that might be critical of minorities. We'd rather fire a man for using the word "niggardly" than teach people what the word actually means. We fire the president of Harvard for offering an explanation of the gender disparity in the scientific community that we don't like, regardless of the validity of his reasoning.
   
9. Journalist standards sucks. The news is now a business, catering to consumer demand. And very few consumers want objective truth. They want information that supports their existing views. And so more and more news sources just give people what they want, with little regard for truth. If you like the facts, why check if they're true, right?
   

I could keep going but I guess I'll stop there. And by the way, I generally like O'Reilly. While I don't always agree with him, I think he's got a good approach to a lot of important issues. But for a man who is already so widely criticized, stuff like this makes his critics' jobs easier.