I watched this video with a sense of wonder at the recovered memories it contains. It is not that Martin Luther King does not know what is in store for him, while we do. It is not that he is speaking out against the Vietnam War, and not much about civil rights. Most people who know history but are not historians know that King was a vocal opponent of that war.
These three men – King, Mike Douglas and singer Tony Martin, are talking about some of the most heated and controversial issues of their day. There were riots in the streets, people at each others’ throats. The Pentagon and FBI were following King and keeping a file on anyone who participated in any demonstration. Emotions were at a high pitch, people were on edge.
And yet, listen to the tone of the conversation. King is flanked by two men to deeply disagree with him and his activities, and who are especially concerned about his opposition to the war. Yet they are respectful, allowing him to think and respond in complete statements. Their questions are thoughtful and reflective, even Martin’s, though he is merely an entertainer. King has time to think, to form a sentence, before he responds.
Take King and transport him to 2010, change the interviewers from Douglas and Martin to say, Bill O’Reilly or Chris Mathews, and to an entertainer like Stephen Colbert (the caricature, and not the real man, who is reflective). No longer are they respectful, no longer can they think before they speak. They would snap at one another, as the game over the years has changed from exchange of views to rat-a-tat brush sniping and talk-over. (Also, there would be a couple of commercial cuts, after which whatever was said before the rat-a-tat ads would be forgotten. That’s an oddity about modern television interviews – views are presented in small and quickly forgotten thought capsules.)
How did this happen? The right wing did this to us, starting with Rush Limbaugh in 1987. There is plenty of blame to go around, but not among various factions – all blame is on the right. Limbaugh hijacked the dialogue, aided by the Reagan boys who opened the radio airwaves to monopolization by one faction by shutting down the fairness doctrine.
No matter where we travel in this land, if we turn on our radios we are harangued by local and national righties. On the TV, there is the ubiquitous Fox, with an MSNBC-whispered response. (“Mainstream” media is, as always, subservient to power, but softer in tone.) Worse yet, even those who can expose themselves to other views do not. We are polarized.
This is not about content. It is tone. There is a name for what Rush and Sean and Bill and all the others are doing – “agitation propaganda”, or agitprop. It is not accidental, and not without purpose. It has made us what we are – mindless screamers. These people, knowingly or not, act with purpose to inflame our emotions and to shut out reasonable voices. They eliminate reflection and self-reflection.
Godwin forgive me, there is historical precedent for this, though history does not repeat. But there is methodological precedent.
Chris Mathews, you are not worthy to kiss Tony Martin’s shoes.
Piece of Mindful 
Riots in the streets; assassinations the method of political change, but the TV pundits are polite.
No riots in the streets; the only assassinations “somewhere else”, but the TV pundits are impolite.
And back then, you call it “Saner”.
Hmmmm
LikeLike
You need only note that the issues of the day were discussed. It is the essence of civilization that contending parties treat each other with respect even if they hold one another in contempt. I maintain that views are not exchanged in these times, as no one actually listens to anyone else.
LikeLike