That's actually pretty mild, coming from The Dan. Must have really hurt him to say it, even snidely.
What we see in the media is a reflection of what has been called "the revolt of the elite" in America. The natural leaders of the nation have spurned the essence of the nation, starting at least in the 1920s, and for a while, they had the people behind them (because nobody could see where they were going!) Now it's obvious where they have gone, and we are now seeing "the counterrevolution of the people" against the "elite".
I could see this in the 1970s -- it was apparent that the "best and brightest" used their control of the channels of information to direct popular thought. Didn't you ever wonder how Cuba kept from being overrun in spite of repeated provocation, and is still in Communist hands after 45 years? It's because the media framed and controlled opinion -- what they blessed was considered orthodox, and any thoughts that might lead to America's cleaning out Castro and his goons were rigidly suppressed.
The government does not control the press in this country, but what you can't do with government may be done by other means. The tsunami of opprobrium and innuendo that would come down on anybody who got "off the reservation" was enough to shut up any possible dissenters, excepting those who were content with living in oblivion. Walter Cronkite could intone "That's the way it is" every night, knowing that he was being believed. And in contrast, just recall the pitiful performance of Pres. Ford, showing off his "WIN" button (Whip Inflation Now -- remember that?) Gerry may have had the "nuclear trigger", but that was a weapon he could never use; Walter had the "camera", and he used it artfully and constantly.
But they didn't suppress Reagan; they couldn't stop him from making news, and they couldn't prevent him from reaching directly to the people. Those to whom the fantasies of Hollywood are more real than reality are more easily led contrary to their own common sense by artificially constructed images, and they tend to listen to the opinions of celebrities, maybe because they imagine them in the role of friends:--I dunno. But here came Ronaldus Magnus, right out of the Hollywood milieu -- you could rent his movies just like you could Bogart's or Jimmy Stewart's.
There were people I knew that had a serious problem with RR just because he was an actor. They would say, "He's used to pretending. How do you know if the man you are seeing is "real" and not a script?" At the time, I had the sense that it was real, and I think history has borne this out. Because Reagan pursued his own course, one which he had set out before the nation in the late 1970s ("Viewpoint" radio commentaries) and which the people "bought" in 1980. Not to put down his other accomplishments (ending the Cold War in victory is not to be sneezed at!), I think the best thing he did was something so "small" as to pass nearly unnoticed at the time.
Reagan canned the odious "Fairness Doctrine". That was the instrument of backdoor government control of opinion. Broadcast media, who depended on their license renewals to stay in business, could be jerked around at will by liberal pressure groups who could demand "equal time" anytime somebody said "God bless America" on a public broadcast. It didn't matter that conservative broadcasts were paid for; if you, a radio station owner, accepted one you were sure to be threatened with loss of license at renewal time if you didn't GIVE "equal time" to any loonies that showed up with a protest. And, of course, if you did actually air their screed, you would come back at the end of their "equal time" segment to find your audience gone. Nobody could stay in business that way.
News programs were, therefore, especially tightly controlled. Not by government, at least, not directly. Oh, no, it was the network executive suite, with eyes firmly fixed on the almighty bottom line, who would pounce on any sentence, any implication uttered "on air" that might provoke one of those "equal time" protests. (Remember Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder?) Of course, liberalism and statism were safe subjects, because liberals and statists were the only ones that ever agitated for "equal time". Conservatives were busy with actual living, working for an honest income rather than government grants, and didn't have the time for constant agitation. It was easier simply to get "used" to the liberal drumbeat, not heeding it, but fending it off as "something that goes with the territory", the way a man with no umbrella might hold up a piece of stray cardboard to fend off a constant drizzle.
Talk radio had begun at least as early as the 1970s, but the hosts were uniformly just as liberal as Walter Cronkite, so there was nothing new about it. I listened to Larry King a couple of times, and rather more to Michael Jackson (the radio commentator, NOT Jacko!), but not to get my opinions from them, of that you can be sure. And then, the Fairness Doctrine ended.
As with many such fundamental changes, nobody noticed for years what was going on. It was 1991 when I first heard, on an office mate's radio, a "different" talk show. What caught my ear at first was the unaccustomed sense of hearing something with which I actually agreed coming out of a radio. I remember thinking, "Hey! That guy is conservative!" Next day, it happened again, and I thought, "Hey! That guy is CONSISTENTLY conservative!" and I was hooked.
Yeah, you know who it was. Don't even ask.
So, to summarize, I say, the truth will out. You may, for a time, convince people to close their eyes and believe you when you say "there is no light, only dark", but you cannot extinguish the sun, and as soon as those eyes open for even a second to see "where the heat is coming from", you have lost them forever.
(Mmm. That felt good. Move along, nothing to see here.)
somehow, I had never connected those dots. thank you!