So, Is it the Messenger or the Message?
A blog that I have found myself visiting more and more gave Al Gore a whining award on the blog that they control the other day. Now, him or her is definetly a Republican and I am a Democrat if you didnt know that already, but I am not going to call she/he out because they seem to be a great person overall and I treat them like I treat Tin Man, no need to get into raging screaming matches over politics, but a healthy debate is good.
But, it did get me to thinking. If it wasn't Al Gore delivering the Global Warming Message, would it make a darn bit of difference? I can admit, Gore is extremely smug. I was so pissed at him over the whole Florida recount debacle, for not fighting more. And there is just something about him that rubs many people who would normally vote for him the wrong way. I get it.
My question, if it was Lieberman or Dodd or Shumer or Bill Frist or even the Dark Overlord, er I mean Cheney, delivering the warnings about what we are doing to our planet, would the Republicans run out and agree and Democrats call it poppycock? (ohh I like using the word poppycock) I fear that the country is spiraling so far out of control that we can't agree on anything.
Now, if your someone controlled by the oil lobby and your from Oklahoma, like Senator Imhofe, it makes sense that you would wish to keep the science out of the record. But, if you, a normal person, can't see that something is up with the weather, then you maybe living in a dream world.
But, thats my own thoughts, tell me, if the messenger wasnt a smug, California elitist, but someone you saw as more of in line with your views, would you listen?
11 comments:
Over at the gym tonight, one of the treadmill TVs was tuned to Fox News (uggh...talk about killing a workout)...anyway, the host was whining about the global warming debate. Basically, he was saying that the science was bunk, blah blah blah ... all of it centered around Gore.
Yours is a good question. I couldn't imagine Fox coming out against the issue if The Shrub or Dr. Evil was on that side.
What I can't figure out is why anyone would come out against protecting the environment, global warming or not. Guarding against possible warming of the earth is a measure to protect the air and water.
Isn't that a bi-partisan issue? Apparently not.
The environment should be a NON-partisan issue; i.e., everyone REGARDLESS of party affiliation should care about protecting natural resources.
But, think about this from a business standpoint: would you buy haircare products from a bald guy or from a guy with full locks like, say, Jon Bon Jovi? It's all in how the message is delivered that will determine the success of the product. I hate to say it, but it's marketing, marketing, marketing. POLITICS is about the sell, not the message. Government should NOT be about politics, but it is.
Just my VERY humble opinion, but then who am I but some no-nothing suburban housewife...d'oh!
There is much I would like to opine/discuss with you on this subject, but obviously the comment section of one of your posts is an inappropriate forum. Perhaps if we come to know each other we can start up a spirited email conversaion on the intellectual side of Messenger/Message, and then jointly publish it.
And then we will create a new species of animal known as the pigeon-rat.
Anyway, as a general proposition, I'd say that often the Messenger gets confused with the Message, and that's just the way it is. To use your own exmplae, if Dick Cheney said something, would a liberal be as likely to evaluate the information free of who delivered it? Probably not. Similarly, rightly or wrongly some people immediately wonder what Al Gore is up to when he speaks, what sort of end-game he has in mind.
More generally this holds true for most politicians. Any time you see a politician suddenly come out strongly on something, you can usually bet he/she is about to run for something.
I have so much more, but I'm violating my own rule above, so I'll let it go with saying this is my first time to your site and I find myself most favorably impressed.
In response to Hyperion, that's the principal reason why things like Fox NEWS can distort facts and get away with it. They call it "News", so people think it isn't commentary, which is a different animal.
Contributors are seen as non-partisan, when they obviously have an agenda.
Today, the name of something is sometimes more important than its content, which is sad, really.
Hello, popped in from Sarge Charlie's place after reading your comments on the Caesar Rodney post.
As for your post here, sadly - it seems that the country can't seem to agree on anything or even agree to disagree without the politics of it being a big issued. Desert Songbird is right in that global warming should be a non-partisan issue and something that all sides of the room are concerned about.
It shouldn't matter WHO brings it up but as you stated, Al Gore tends to rub people the wrong way so maybe he isn't the best messenger in this case. People are so busy disliking the messenger that they don't hear the message. When the messenger becomes more important than the message itself, the message will be lost.
And now you're probably lost after all of that!
You lost me at Republican and Democrat. Seriously. LOL I'm lucky to know who my own Prime Minister is.
Erm...Canadian here. I liked that Al Gore got involved with this. It doesn't really matter to me how smug he is -- what matters is that he got people listening. I don't know if any of those other dudes could have. I think he was perfect for the job -- just to get the documentary noticed. He's an odd guy for the job, and a famous guy -- perfect.
I think you are on to something for sure. I often wonder just how many times a certain topic becomes a vital issue just because it is solely owned by a party. If the two shared the concern, then it no longer is an issue that needs to be addressed and falls by the wayside. Likewise, they attack completely qualified and valid concerns because they don't belong to their own party. Sad, really.
Don't you wisht hat the medium wasn't the message?
That we could just pay attention to content, and whether the content has merit, and not whether we personally like the person who is delivering the message?
In response to Anthony: Geez, guy. Give us a break. You guys have half a dozen news outlets distorting the facts on a regular basis -- mind if we have ONE? :)
wordnerd: OK, one. But, I'd like it a lot more if they would go off the air at midnight. Being on at those weird hours just attracts a lot of drunks, who are suckers for a good story. Between Fox and QVC, drunks are probably responsible for 50% of their viewership. ;-)
Post a Comment