Outrage Alive Today? Examining Daniel Ellsberg's Impact

[russ_watters]

Are you kidding? The Iraq war was probably the most media reported war ever, with an extremely high level of access!

The Embedded Press System Can be Judged as Widely
Successful Across a Broad Range of Outcomes and
Measures

Summary page 8: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG200.pdf

Are you equating the negativity of Vietnam coverage with inherent superiority? Throughout its length, the Iraq war was a cakewalk compared to Vietnam, for both sides. The Vietnam War killed something like 20x as many people!

 

[Galteeth]

Outrage is alive today, but the outrage isn't appropriately focused. For instance, everyone jumped on the PIPA/SOPA proposals but not many people where fighting the patriot act or the so-called "protect america act" or any of the other hundreds of privacy and rights violations packaged as protection acts. While I completely agree with the anti-SOPA movement, I think a lot of its momentum simply came from the actual threat to piracy itself.

A more recent example is the outrage over Chik-Fil-A, who campaigns politically against homosexuals. What about the homosexuals being murdered across the globe? Why isn't the outrage there?

1.The SOPA thing was a novel threat, in the sense that people are used to a free and open internet, thus the outrage. People have become accustomed to political corruption, lies, the growing police state. As far as the latter, it's been done through incrementalism, a policy that has worked going back to Augustus Caesar.

2.People never get too upset about things that happen outside America.

3. The chik-fil-a thing is an example of the growing popularity of sports coverage. The "team blue/team red culture war" thing is treated by the media like a sports game, to generate controversy, web hits, ratings, etc. People buy into it and play along for the same reason they get so passionate about their local sports franchises. My team versus your team for the future of america, rah, rah, rah. (SOPA didn't fit into this narrative, as both teams are dependent on the internet in the same way)

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not sure how young you're looking for but my two cents...

I think there's actually a sort of opposite problem. I think lots of people feel "outraged" and that in fact, "outrage" itself has become sensationalized to the point that people are very proudly "outraged" by any number of things. The SOPA, PIPA (even chik-fil-a) examples demonstrate this. "Outrage" is the overwhelmingly popular response.

Indeed, I think too often today, young people try to associate the political issues of our generation with that of the '60s. If anything, the younger generation sort of idolizes that generation. Even looking at fashion and music, and the entire trend of hipsters (which I personally believe is indicative of quite a lot,) it's apparent that today, the younger generation has this obsession with reliving the past, trying to recapture the spirit and yes, "outrage" that possessed earlier generations.

The Bush WMDs and invasion of Iraq were very often directly compared with Vietnam. And as would be expected, many college campuses were full of students actively protesting. However, these protests were the sort of sensationalized "outrage" I'm talking about. While there are definitely those who felt very passionately about the war, it was instead the popularity of opposing the war that drew the large crowds. This is apparent because protests gradually dwindled and the immediate "outrage" became less trendy. In fact, an opposing trend "support our troops" became much more fashionable. And interestingly, both trends advocated ending the war, (the first because the war was WRONG, the second because they wanted to "bring our sons and daughters home".)

And not to be critical, but I think part of this phenomenon is that the older generations, who did in fact live through Vietnam and rightly remember the wrongs that occurred, seem to encourage this trend as well. Legitimizing this "outrage" in a way.

Honestly, I'm not personally terribly outraged by the government. I'm more disappointed in the masses of people wrongly directing their interest toward "trendy" issues, and "trendy" responses to them. People get more "outraged" at the president for implementing policies that he was basically forced into because of various levels of bipartisan politics, than they'll get at their local school board for refusing to supply books or supplies to their own children. Or they'll complain about corruption at the executive level and never stop and examine how some local businesses practices are affecting the local environment. People, old and young, should be engaged in politics at a much more civil level that doesn't require "outrage" in order to be active. However, today, we are so insulated from local affairs, and constantly bombarded by "news" that is so far removed from our local environments that we associate our lives more with national (or even international) level politics than local. While I don't advocate ignoring the higher levels of government, I think people should take a much more passive stance regarding its decisions. Stronger local situations will help mitigate any national issues, as well as provide a firmer foundation on which national politics take place.

1. I agree with you about trendy issues. I remember thinking, when I was observing the 2004 protest of the RNC- What difference are these people making? By protesting something, theoretically you make a minor contribution to something that might make a slight difference in public opinion that might lead to a change occurring. Whereas you could say, sponsor a third world child and provide them with food and some other basics for a few dollars a month. Obviously, as far as the contributing to world justice, one gets you a lot more bang for your buck. But protesting is fun and sexy, and it's a community thing. It's also an assertion of your identity, a way to make your voice heard, a way to meet people, a way to feel that you're not alone in your identity/moral convictions, a way to feel like you're part of something historically significant. I remember the 2004 protest I referred to was more like a parade then a serious political action. The whole thing just seemed silly. Working for social justice can involve sacrifice, be depressing (when you don't succeed), take time and effort, not be high profile, and can often be dangerous.

2. Sorry, but I hate the sixties. The whole boomer nostalgia thing makes me sick. I don't think most kids like the sixties or anything, i think that is just a projection of the boomers. There is such an obnoxious mentality. Oh, there was this unique time (when we were young), and everything we did was so significant and original, and will never be done again, and nothing can ever compare with that, and we've seen it all and mistakes were made and now we've decided to be stock brokers and make media do endless retrospectives on the sixties and dedicate entire radio stations to the music that was popular when we were 20. Bleh!