Brokaw on The View, when asked what causes polarization in America today,

[Skidmore]

points to special interests being able to focus their resources with greater specificity and to the internet as being able to target punishment for those decisionmakers who do not comply with their wishes. I chuckled at the willful blindness to the role of the whole media in trying to create a narrative to fit news cycles. And, of course, it wouldn't dawn upon Walters or anyone else at the table to suggest a role for the broadcast media.

[FarCenter]

1. Are fish aware of the water?

[Fumesucker]

2. They are damn sure aware when you drain the tank..

And we have several foul tanks that need draining desperately.

[itsallhappening]

3. Especially odd, considering his affiliation with one of the two

networks that get ratings by polarizing and sensationalism. Fox and MSNBC aren't the only media outlets that do this, but they're the two leading ones.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. As if MSNBC is in any way equivalent to Fox.

What highly rated Fox commentator has been fired for being TOO conservative?

On a 1-10 scale, conservative to liberal, Fox is a 1, CNN is a 3, MSNBC is a 6, RT is an 8 or 9. There is no 10. MSNBC is very middle-path, along with NBC and CBS (which are about 4 or 5).

[itsallhappening]

10. The prime-time programming is, at least.

The good news, though, is that if you add up the total number of viewers for all of those cable "news" networks, it's just over 5 million people -- less than 2% of the population.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Americans are scammed to death on the basics

Housing, health care, education. And they use credit cards (or household refis, back in the day) to make up the difference. And the illusion of stock market wealth that they know can vanish at any time, along with their dreams of a secure retirement. So they start each day feeling at least a little fucked. Maybe do a story about that some time, Tom, instead of reinforcing the divide-and-conquer theme every time you open your corporate-owned mouth.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. Hell, he could be talking about the media

when he mentions 'special interests,' as the media are owned outright by those selfsame special interests.

[Skidmore]

8. I don't think he was. I think he believes that what he does is somehow

outside of concerns of mere mortals. He just looks down on the human masses and pontificates. I literally guffawed when he referred to Boomers as "they"--I do believe he is in the same generation.

[Major Hogwash]

7. He just wrote a book, so he's out there like a whore trying to sell it on the street.

I would no more buy one of his books as I would listen to what he has to say for 10 minutes. In 1998, he told a national audience that he thought that Clinton would be impeached, and then later said, he should have been impeached.

He's a dick.

[liberal N proud]

9. Walters wouldn't think to speak against the media, she is the media

And the View is her show therefore the others will not cross that line either.

[Johonny]

11. He's kind of right, but misses the big picture for me.

certainly special interests that have the ear of politicians over the vast majority of Americans is a major problem in this country. I mean take the issue of raising tax rates back to before the Bush tax cut particularly on the wealthy. A plan with support to most Americans and popular with economic experts. Yet totally ignored by congress. Why? A small handful of special interests have vastly more input on this subject.

Is this fueled by the internet? No. More importantly without huge amounts of money (say like wealthy corporations use to keep tax benefits) there are few ways for the general public to cheaply get their views out.

Also not all focused views are bad. There are a lot of small special interests that started as focused groups that pressured politicians that grew and became popular in time, say the anti-slavery movement or more closer in time gay marriage. Gay marriage wasn't on the radar of most Americans at all and only slowly gained in popularity. Now it is the majority view in many states where 10 years ago it wasn't.

The odd thing is how the media play into it. Minority views that have not gained much popularity in time, say the many anti-women movements get huge amount of press time. Why? The tea party never represent the majority of Republican voters yet alone American voters, or candidates for office and has become vastly less popular with time, and yet still occupies huge amounts of air time in the media. Why?

Focused special interests thus can be both beneficial and destructive to society, but how they are is largely due to how the media portrays them. Vastly continuously unpopular special interests get completely blank slates and over reporting while largely popular movements are ignored or critically examined to death. The media thus plays a key role in how these interest groups work. Hey the 99 % can put a whole lot of pressure on politicians, but they lack the $ to hold politicians feet to the fire. Meanwhile the Koch brothers can threaten to withhold major $$ that puts the house in jeopardy in the next election unless Republicans vote the way they want. Who's voice gets heard? Who's view points get aired by the media more, the small rich minority or the 99 %. Who drives polarization? The poor or the rich generating distraction? The answer seems obvious to me.