Politically ignorant generation of sheep

Are we the generation of the politically ignorant?

politically ignorantThe word ignorant gets its root from the word ignore. Someone who is ignorant is someone who ignores. Because we ignore, we are politically ignorant.

I worry about the future of my government because I live with generations of the ignorant. We have almost no sources of news today other than the slimy slanted broadcast news stations and broadcast news centers.

Things have changed and not all change is progress.

When I was a young person, the TV networks took news seriously. The vision of Walter Annenberg attempted to present the top news stories of the day in 30-minute segments every evening.

Some even adopted 60-minute formats and news anchors tried to present the facts. Editorial content was reserved for a few small moments every few weeks when the station’s editorial staff expressly present an opinion piece.

Politically ignorant was not Walter CronkiteThere were inherent reasons why this format worked. Americans, by and large, received or purchased a daily newspaper. These papers subscribed to international bureaus like the AP or UPI and the larger papers had reporters stationed all over the globe, collecting, dissecting and evaluating the validity of the world’s happenings.

The broadcast news bureaus were not designated as profit centers. They were part of the station’s charter to serve the public interest. No one confused or polluted the broadcasts or segments as entertainment. Few were politically ignorant.

When CBS, NBC, and ABC covered the political conventions, the news anchor (like Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley) watched the event and acted as a master of ceremony diverting the live cameras to the stories taking place on the convention floor.

Everyday beat reporters, like the soon to become famous Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, asked hard hitting questions of Mayor Daley or Everett Dirkson.

What do we have today?

Drivel. Politically ignorant drivel.

Panels of talking heads replay scripted spin. The conventions themselves lack the drama of even the Academy Awards. The reason? All the outcomes and decisions are known before the convention itself. The result is ignorance.

Politically ignorantWho needs to make a considered decision when you can tune into any specific political broadcast and see and hear only from proselytizers and pundits that already agree with your pre-determined decisions?

How many Americans believe that Jon Stewart, Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly are newsmen?

This lack of discourse makes ignorance comfortable and worse still acceptable. How many of you have heard of the Pulitzer Prize-winning web site called Politifact? It is a web site dedicated to political fact checking. It looks for misinformation on both sides of the aisle.

Today, if you are unhappy with the way government is working (or not working), I say that we get the government we deserve. And we deserve the government we get.

the results of being politically ignorantI am NOT outraged over Donald Trump’s political comments concerning Russians and emails. I AM outraged that his supporters are not providing any political incentives or consequences to stop this unfiltered crap.

Political benefits at what cost? Diplomacy works only through back doors not through bullying tactics. As a nation, we pretend to abhor bulling in our schools but we seem to have no problem rewarding it in the important geopolitical arena.

So what is the end result of political thought that is unchallenged and ignored? History tells us the unbelievable and the inconceivable happens when rational objection and forethought goes out the window.

When it is suggested that we could make ourselves safer and preserve our culture… the silent majority nods in agreement. Let’s put the Jews in camps.

The Oscars award a brand face

I’m sensing a trend when it comes to the Academy Awards, which gave its Best Picture award to Birdman last night. The Michael Keaton-starrer was about a former superhero actor who wants to be important, so he stages a play.

Two years ago, the winner was Argo, Ben Affleck’s opus about how a fake movie got a handful of Canadians out of Iran. And the year before, the winner was The Artist, a look at the silent movie era.

We can debate the merits of those three films, but one thing is clear. Like the rest of us, the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences like to see an aspirational version of themselves.

The Oscar goes to the movie about actors.
The Oscar goes to the movie about actors.

Sound familiar?

That sentiment, of course, is the first rule of having any winning brand. Your must be an aspirational, emotional reflection of the target audience that you are trying to reach.

Three times in the last four years, the Oscars chose to honor a film that is the best representation of themselves: An actor looking to redeem himself. A federal agent posing as a producer in a fake movie to save lives. An actor and actress standing on the cusp of a new art form.

These are what we call brand faces, what the reflection looks like when the target audiences looks at your brand.

There are certainly other reasons why some movies win and others don’t. Some are just better. Some promote a message the academy wants to promote. Some are seen as representative of the year.

But if recent history is any example, the academy members have been more sensitive to their relevancy in the world. It’s foolish to speculate why that emotion may run high (without quantitative research) and it may just because there have been three good (but not great) movies on the subject.

The lesson here, however, that winning brands are that emotional brand face. That’s why the Oscars celebrated Birdman.