There is a popular media putdown for anyone who tries to explain anything more complicated than how to take an aspirin. This goes something like "you're too far in the weeds on this." In other words, "the American public is too stupid (or distracted) to understand the details of what you are trying to say." And so, the viewers or listeners seldom get the real story beyond the superficials on any issue. And to continue the thought on my previous blog (A Master Politician) ... politicians have come to rely on this tropism and convolute their messages so as to win the soundbite contest. A perfect example of this trend is the current back and forth between religious freedom and HHS Secretary Sibelius's edict on medical-insurance coverages. I won't go into the weeds on this issue, but you decide which message is directed to a dumbed-down American electorate.
Apparently this was not the case when Ross Perot was running for President in 1992. He could pull out his many financial charts on the Larry King Live show and expound for an hour on how the United States was going down the tubes. And we listened to him ... and, if he had not gone a little paranoid toward the end of his candidacy, we might well have elected him. What has changed? I wish I was smart enough to figure out this conundrum. But, if I could, I doubt if many would stick around long enough to read my analysis.
George,
ReplyDeleteI thought that “in the weeds” was when someone or something, usually in the food or beverage industry, becomes overwhelmed and falls behind. Hence your notion of distracted rather than stupid is correct paradigm. It is a sound-bite, elevator-pitch, text message world. You have 140 characters or about 15 seconds to get your point across.
You can graze through thousands of news tidbits and commentaries in a day if you stay distracted. I find myself often reading comments on long articles rather than article itself because the comments are much more pithy, varied and vibrant. Time’s up!
George