A recent Washington Post opinion piece used the term “angertainment” to describe the antics and publicity stunts that seem to be the meat-and-potatoes of Republican politics these days.
The case at hand was the narrow victory by Representative Boebert of Colorado. While she is particularly noted for inflammatory stunts, I’m sure we can all recall other examples. You might recall local political ads suggesting that a candidate planned to hunt down and kill Democrats. On the national scene, surely you remember statements encouraging violence against the vice-president. Or maybe it’s just a case of using taxpayer funds from one state, to fly asylum-seekers between two other states. Because, why not?
That Post opinion piece offered two general descriptions of “angertainment”. It’s “… an approach to governing that mistakes “owning the libs” for getting things done for constituents.” Alternatively, it’s behavior specifically chosen to elicit news coverage along the lines of “You won’t believe what this GOP candidate is saying or doing!”
I guess I’d characterize it maintaining political power by appealing to the mob’s anger, rather than actually trying to solve any problems or address issues.
But as I was reading through yet a different Post article — this time on beach erosion in Florida — it occurred to me that the comments sections on most Washington Post articles are themselves nothing but angertainment. Person after anonymous person, spewing venom and expressing their hatred for fill-in-the-blank.
So I made a comment to that effect. In the angertainment opinion piece. As politely as I could. And was immediately flamed, called names, told I was an agent of Trump, and so on.
Thus more-or-less immediately proving my point.
I think I had a little epiphany, after that. And after reading through the comments on a story about beach erosion in Florida. In a nutshell, the U.S is going to lose a huge swath of coastal land as a result of climate change, with all the hardship, displacement, and loss that implies. And 99 percent of the comments boiled down to “Florida sucks, and they deserve it”.
After reflecting on that a bit, I’ve decided that I’m just not going to read comments sections any more. I’ll read what the professional journalists write. And skip the amateur bile. No matter how entertaining it might be to get all stoked up on the anger expressed.
For newspapers where comments are heavily moderated — such as the New York Times — there is still some climate of reason in the comments sections. And the comments there are frequently worth reading.
But in the Washington Post — and, frankly, almost everywhere else — the comments sections really seems to be in a race to the bottom. Just a bunch of angry people, who got stirred up by the newspaper article, and who feel the need to mouth off.
So I’m just not going to go there. Surely, even in retirement, I can find a better use for my time.
