COMM 386: Let's take the high road (for a change)
ASSIGNED READING ALERT! The link below may be hazardous to your preconceived notions. In class Friday I will hand out a three-page handout [duh! I guess that's what you always do with handouts] ... I'll distribute a three-page hard copy printout of an article on Newsweek's website that discusses some of the questions we are asking ourselves this semester: In it Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing magazine, says we "want desperately to believe that the American voters, whatever mistakes they may make, are at bottom rational and competent." Ehrenhalt's essay is thoughtful and nuanced, and I can't do it justice with a paraphrase. But he comes close to his main point when he says:
An electorate, in other words, is something like a jury. It's a panel of ordinary people, limited in their knowledge and training, who combine to produce a judgment of greater wisdom than any of them could make alone. The crowd, in some mysterious way, is wiser than the individual. The average voter may be no genius, but the electorate as a group is no fool. So the theory goes. It is a theory that allows candidates, scholars and journalists to get through the day without having to question the fundamental tenets of American government.
But, he adds immediately:
I don't contend that the theory is groundless. There is something in the wisdom of crowds. What seems to me inescapable is that the past few years have not been kind to those who accept the rational voter idea as an article of faith.
Ehrenhalt cites the false assumptions behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, but he also cites cites misleading campaign rhetoric from both camps in this year's election. He concludes, we can have an informed electorate that "won't require candidates to give stump speeches berating the voters as fools. But it will require some painful thinking about what a "rational voter" really is and how we might go about making more of them."
Ehrenhalt's essay is not comfortable reading, but I think it's vitally important for us to read it and discuss it.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(218)
-
▼
September
(41)
- COMM 386: Palin as debater
- COMM 386: More on myths, archetypes, politicians
- COMM 207, 337: 'Working the edges'
- COMM 337: Writers guidelines / WED. ASSIGNMENT
- COMM 386: Palin to 'win' debate? You read it here ...
- COMM 386: Kurtz describes debate spin; Couric a wi...
- This is off topic, but ...
- COMM 207: 'Gray lady' and Taser death head
- COMM 386: Myths and elections. Paul Bunyan, meets ...
- COMM 386: Scribes ink meltdown train wreck
- COMM 386: Media bias? You bet! But ...
- COMM 337: Snarky, snarky ... classic, classic Chic...
- COMM 207: Pun-ishing copydesk humor ...
- COMM 337, 386: Op-ed columns in Wall Street Journa...
- COMM 207: Playing it straight as man stuck on stop...
- COMM 386: More on Surowiecki's 'wisdom of crowds' ...
- Law prof Obama's advice for Democrats, Republicans...
- COMM 386 Friday: Linkers, thinkers and stinkers
- COMM 386: What does this mean?
- COMM 337: Clear writing on a complex topic
- COMM 386: Link to candidates' Wall Street ads
- COMM 386: The disappearing 6-point economic plan
- COMM 386: Pundits counterattack?
- COMM 386: 'Wisdom of Crowds' / ASSIGNED READING
- COMM 337:
- COMM 386: Narrative straws in a media wind?
- COMM 386: Let's take the high road (for a change)
- Student Blogs -- Fall Semester 2008
- COMM 386: Narratives, politics, PoMo and buzzwords
- COMM 386: Read yesterday's story (below) first ...
- COMM 386: Politics, personality, polls, lipstick, ...
- COMM 337: Links to today's reading, epigraph
- Why copyediting is important ...
- Palin on Wal-Mart wedding
- COMM 337: Craft, writing
- Palin -- quotes and links
- COMM 207: Short list of AP style
- COMM 337: More questions -- art v. craft
- COMM 337: Discussion questions
- COMM 386: Did McCain campaign orchestrate pregnanc...
- Don't Juneau? Link to a link to an Alaska blog
No comments:
Post a Comment