It's certainly not indifference, it's that our media and democracy aren't really functioning properly. I can go look at any news site and regardless of the site's political bias - there's a recurring theme. You'll see lots of pro war stuff and lots stuff on topics that makes people really dislike each other. But these sort of issues where people overwhelmingly feel one way, and the political establishment feels another? Yeah, those are all strangely absent.
And come next year? These same topics will receive about as much coverage as COBOL at a hot trends in computing conference. Instead we'll get two people each telling you to vote for them because the other guy's awful. The one bright side is we can safely say that they're both right.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/11/15/key-takea...
I feel that Sanders' nomination campaigns epitomized this divide: He spoke for the people. Many more people donated for him than any other candidate, his supporters were diverse and enthusiastic. He was the number one most popular politician in the entire country.
Yet media - quite openly - gave him far less coverage, were 3x more negative in the coverage they did give, studiously ignored the attacks and cheating from the political establishment, systematically smeared his supporters, and then blamed him when Hilary (number one disliked Democrat in America) lost.
And smart people, rational people with functioning memories, apparently, seemed to just... not want to talk about it.
And then it happened again, with even more obvious collusion, four years later. And we talked about it even less, just relieved that we wouldn't have another 4 years of that.
Bringing it all up now feels like you're reopening someone else's closed scab. People are auto-rewriting their own version history to help themselves feel less abused, it seems. They don't want to hear it. And this is (many of) the people who were even clued in to it all in the first place.
Only Sanders wanted Snowden to be honored for his actions. Hilary wanted him to "face the music". It could all hardly be more obvious. And yet...
As much money as they lose; they make enough returns for their owners in indirect ways to be worth the investment. Murdoch and Turner are many things, but poor isn't one of them.
Btw, did anyone else find it disturbing how "do your own research" became a trigger phrase that allows a rather large group of people to discount anything and everything you said? And at the same time, for an opposite but similar group of people, "trust the science" did the same thing?
unfortunately some politicians seek to gain power by appealing to this
And at the same time, blindly trusting institutions and their dogma has long been a turn-on for people with a superiority complex, or those content with the status quo.
Each cheek of the political arse seeks to gain power by simplistically appealing to these groups, because it's more effective for raising funds and votes than it ought to be.
one thing is for sure, though: falsely portraying trust in expertise and science as,
"blindly trusting institutions and their dogma"
or
"for people with a superiority complex, or those content with the status quo",
has been a trope of those same anti-science, anti-expertise politicians for even longer. As Asimov wrote:
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
You seem to have jumped from me saying that some put too much stock in dogma and institutions, to believing that this was an attempt to attack expertise and science. There was nothing in my comment, even implicit, that would lead someone fair to this conclusion.
This assumptive leap typifies the 'with us or against us' thinking I'm talking about; tribal thinking which short-circuits reason, and harms genuine scientific thinking.
Even if you didn't mean to imply this, what you wrote has that effect; consider re-reading your own comment if you don't see that.
You seem to have jumped from me criticizing those who do (particularly those who are anti-science and anti-expertise), to an accusation that you personally did so. There was nothing in my comment, even implicit, that would lead someone fair to this conclusion. If you aren't doing it, the criticism doesn't apply to you.
This assumptive leap typifies the persecution complex I'm talking about: emotional thinking which short-circuits reason, and harms genuine scientific thinking. Consider re-reading your own comment if you don't see that.
Is that true, though? Or do we, in our bubble, just believe that? I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people think the news media -- at least the particular subset of the news media they choose to watch -- is more or less ok.
[1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/27/u-s-adult...
Ah, sweet flower child.
We know the CIA has commandeered domestic media organizations for the purpose of influencing the opinions of the American public before - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
I could make the case that while what Snowden did was heroic, and praiseworthy in a just and educated nation, the US is ultimately neither a just nor educated nation, and too little changed as a result of his whistleblowing. Go ask 100 truly random people what they think of Snowden's revelations and you may find yourself quite disappointed. John Oliver did an episode on this and it was more than a little depressing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M