The narrator seems to be saying that people are generally able to seperate truth from fiction. If this is true, then why even bring this subject up? If the people who listen to Keith Olberman are able to seperate fact from lies, why then attack the Olberman for his opinion? I think the facts differ from what is being discussed here. I don't think a 200 year old review of Coleridge about fictional poetry has anything to do with the state of modern day society which especially in America has become used to sitting on the sofa and absorbing all the hype being sold to them. They used to tell us cigarettes were good also! Alot of dead people weren't able to seperate fact from fiction. They sold us the belief that we were under imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq....alot of people are dead and our treasury is gone because "the people" were NOT able to seperate truth from fiction. So I believe that what Mr. Olberman is only trying to say is, why add fuel to the fire of a paranoid and frightened society anyway? Perhaps what Mr. Levinson is saying is that people in society 200 years ago were more able to seperate fact from fiction because they "read" and thought more with their own intellect. Today it has become so much easier to just let the television do our "thinking"....
Paul Levinson skillfully raises the question of commentators creating controversy as an end in itself.
Political opinions are as much about entertainment are they are about issues. Suspense whether terror related or not, sells and this is what 24 feeds off of.
It's just as absurd as believing Keith Olbermann has created net neutral opinions as it is to say Bill O"Reilly has created a No Spin Zone.
I say this despite the fact I like Mr. Olbermann.
Comments for Olbermann's Suspension of Rationality about 24
This piece belongs to the series "A View to Media"
Produced by Paul Levinson
Other pieces by Paul Levinson
Rating Summary
2 comments
ken girardey
Posted on January 18, 2007 at 08:37 AM | Permalink
Review of Olbermann's Suspension of Rationality about 24
The narrator seems to be saying that people are generally able to seperate truth from fiction. If this is true, then why even bring this subject up? If the people who listen to Keith Olberman are able to seperate fact from lies, why then attack the Olberman for his opinion? I think the facts differ from what is being discussed here. I don't think a 200 year old review of Coleridge about fictional poetry has anything to do with the state of modern day society which especially in America has become used to sitting on the sofa and absorbing all the hype being sold to them. They used to tell us cigarettes were good also! Alot of dead people weren't able to seperate fact from fiction. They sold us the belief that we were under imminent danger of being attacked by Iraq....alot of people are dead and our treasury is gone because "the people" were NOT able to seperate truth from fiction. So I believe that what Mr. Olberman is only trying to say is, why add fuel to the fire of a paranoid and frightened society anyway? Perhaps what Mr. Levinson is saying is that people in society 200 years ago were more able to seperate fact from fiction because they "read" and thought more with their own intellect. Today it has become so much easier to just let the television do our "thinking"....
Joel Brussell
Posted on January 18, 2007 at 06:40 AM | Permalink
Review of Olbermann's Suspension of Rationality about 24
Paul Levinson skillfully raises the question of commentators creating controversy as an end in itself.
Political opinions are as much about entertainment are they are about issues. Suspense whether terror related or not, sells and this is what 24 feeds off of.
It's just as absurd as believing Keith Olbermann has created net neutral opinions as it is to say Bill O"Reilly has created a No Spin Zone.
I say this despite the fact I like Mr. Olbermann.