More on 'class'.

Via American Digest, I came across this post by the Anchoress, "Wealth Porn and Cognitive Dissonance at Grey Lady" where she discusses this article by Dick Meyers.

A money quote from the article:

"Bill Clinton didn't bash the rich a lot, but he could have; Johns Kerry and Edwards did bash the rich a lot, and it flopped. It flopped partly because Americans who are not rich simply do not have a European-style, class base resentment. Americans aspire to being rich. That's the American way. But the '04 Democratic rhetoric also flopped because the guys spewing looked like such phonies; they weren't just rich, they were richer than the Republicans: they were hyper-rich."

And its this that strikes both Meyers and the Anchoress about the NY Times. Blathering on about class in a Red sort of way, while advertising to the Hyper-rich (Not that I really like that term, hyper, as it smacks of Braulliard), but still.

I saw more of this 'wealth porn' this very morning while waiting for my car's oil to be changed--the TV had on the morning news of ABC's New York Affiliate, where apparently one of the important stories this morning (along with the Michael Jackson trial, and that lost girl in Aruba) was one on the British Royal Family, and I thought to myself, "Why on Earth is this important at all to Americans?" For some strange reason, there was also a copy of a recent Conde Nast Traveller magazine, which, frankly, is just chock full of the stuff.

It used to be, I think, that people really weren't so aware of this. I can't say why exactly, although I think the monopoly that media had on information distribution had something to do with it.

That has changed. It can only be a good thing it has.

No comments: