Ocasio-Cortez and Trump just like characters in ’75 satire ‘Network’

By David McElroy · April 5, 2019

When a movie called “Network” came out in 1975, it was outlandish satire of something that could never possibly happen. But it doesn’t seem like a parody anymore. It just seems like a drama about people who are very much like incompetent bullies who appear on your television “news” channels today.

In 1975, news was a serious business. The men and women who produced newspapers and broadcast news saw themselves as responsible people who the public trusted to be serious and accountable.

In “Network,” writer Paddy Chayefsky was asking what would happen if news turned into entertainment and nothing about television mattered except ratings. He intended his movie to be a warning, but it’s turned into a blueprint for chaos in modern culture.

Few people listened to the warning — and politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Donald Trump are the result.

Most people see Ocasio-Cortez and Trump as opposites, but they’re actually flip sides of the same coin. They’re people who are sure of themselves — despite being incredibly ignorant — and they’re perfect for modern television. Why? Because today’s television news revolves around conflict, not around intellect or ideas.

We’ve known since at least 1960 — when the telegenic John F. Kennedy was elected — that television drove the popularity of politicians. But that was an era when ideas still mattered, at least at times. Over the next couple of decades, television changed — both in quantity and substance — and that changed which politicians became popular.

Television is all about conflict, whether it’s scripted shows or news content. Conflict drives ratings, so networks — which now have to fill 24 hours a day of content — are willing to do almost anything to create conflict and keep viewers tuning in.

So what matters on television today? Confidence, media-savvy, an attacking screen presence, and a willingness to be controversial.

What doesn’t matter on television today? Rationality, honesty, humility, intellect or responsibility.

Many people have been asking why Ocasio-Cortez is suddenly all over the media. She is a nobody with no achievements. She’s just one of 435 members of the House. So why do you see her all the time?

She doesn’t represent the future (as some Democrats hope) and she’s not going to change everything (as some Republicans fear). She’s simply a media-smart and outspoken person who’s divisive and confrontational.

She’s perfect for television — in the same ways that Donald Trump is. They are mirror images of one another.

Ocasio-Cortez divides Republicans and Democrats. She divides different factions in her own party. She divides classes and age groups in a way that few people have the polarizing ability to do. She talks in TV-friendly soundbites (whether she’s right or wrong) and she’s always attacking someone.

She’s the perfect character for TV “news” shows. She could have been written as a character for the Howard Beal Show. Her popularity is all about television ratings — generating enough hatred between enough people that both sides watch the drama — not because she’s going to achieve anything and certainly not because she has any achievements to her name.

She is a reflection of the worst in media culture.

And like a random ink blot, Democrats and Republicans are going to see in her whatever they most want or fear — just as they have with Trump for years.

I doubt she will ever achieve anything of note in Congress, simply because Congress is a body that gets things done by personal relationships and deal-making — and this is something she’s clearly terrible at. All she does is throw bombs, in the same way that Trump throws bombs.

Trump would have been a nobody in Congress, because of the nature of the body. She will also be a nobody in Congress, at least when it comes to achievements.

If the country ever moved far enough to the left, though, she would have a legitimate chance to be elected president, because her personality would play well in the modern media executive model.

Watch “Network” sometime. (I’ll post a modern trailer for the movie below.) See if you don’t see Trump and Ocasio-Cortez as characters who would have fit in well on the Howard Beal Show.

The fictional network executives of UBS in the movie didn’t care how irresponsible their on-air talent became, just as long as they could have “the No. 1 show in television.” The same is true today.

As long as shallow modern media — and now shallow social media — drive the direction of our society, you can count on more and more “leaders” such as Trump and Ocasio-Cortez. The medium which you have embraced and given control over politics — by your viewing habits — demands people such as these.

When these people lead us over a cliff — as they will — remember that you supported the system which gave them power.

The only thing which can stop the anti-intellectual ignorance you see in front of you is to stop watching the televised conflict which you call news and for you to withdraw your consent from an immoral system of coercion.

Since almost nobody will do either of those things, expect to see a lot more politicians such as these ignorant incompetents. But they will be televised and you will keep watching — so you can cheer and boo as though you’re watching professional wrestling.

Just remember that Paddy Chayefsky warned you. Neil Postman warned you. Marshal McLuhan warned you. But you didn’t listen.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts