A lot of people have made comments about how the mainstream media, the netroots, and even here at DKos have occasionally angered and/or turned off people from participating in creating a progressive agenda. Much of the argument has focused on political and/or ideological grounds, and while it deserves a large portion on how and why our media frames the political debate the way it does, it's not the only way our political debate is being shaped. Much of it is being shaped by generational ties as well.
A huge number of people in the blogosphere and here on DKos react passionately with much disdain and contempt for right wing bloviating pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs, et al, while at the same time championing the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, and to some extent Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Yet at the same, many people ever here on DKos sometimes get a little annoyed by the bombast of those pundits we even love and support, while wondering whether a different approach should be taken. I think the best way to look at the state of political punditry is to take a look at where they stand generationally.
Much of the current media punditry are members of the Baby Boom generation, who grew up in privilege and comfort but were affected by the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements, Vietnam, Watergate, and Roe vs. Wade. But even among those within the Baby Boom Generation (born between 1946 and 1964), there are some noticeable differences in style and substance.
The early Baby Boom pundits are represented by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (DOB: 1/12/1951), Bill O'Reilly (DOB: 9/10/1949), Lou Dobbs (DOB: 9/24/1945), Thom Hartmann (DOB: 5/7/1951), and Ed Schultz (DOB: 1/27/1954). All of these pundits are known for their bombast, and all of them tend to argue passionately about their issues they espouse, usually in moralistic, black and white terms. Each of them came into their formative early adult years in the wake of either the Vietnam War or Watergate, which shaped much of their political opinions.
The later Baby Boom punditry class are represented by the likes of Sean Hannity (DOB: 12/30/1961), Glenn Beck (DOB: 2/10/1964), Keith Olbermann (DOB: 1/27/1959), Laura Ingraham (DOB: 6/19/1964), Stephanie Miller (DOB: 9/29/1961), Rick Sanchez (DOB: 7/3/1958), Jon Stewart (DOB: 11/28/1962), and Stephen Colbert (DOB: 11/13/1964). Though each of these people are technically members of the Baby Boom generation, they were children when the Vietnam War was fought, and they were teenagers when Watergate occurred. In addition, they entered their early adult years in the midst of the Iran Hostage Crisis, rampant inflation, the OPEC-fueled gas crisis, and the beginnings of the Reagan Revolution. They also experienced the brunt of the Me Decade, where people shied away from social issues in order to pursue their own personal interests. As a result of these events, they became more cynical then their earlier Baby Boom compatriots, and it is reflected in their style of punditry. While they tend to harbor the same passion and bombast of their earlier-born Baby Boom elder pundits, they tend to use hyberbole, sarcasm, and irony to get their political points across. In the case of Hannity and Laura Ingraham, it's a lot of mean-spirited putdowns of the left wing; in the case of Glenn Beck, it's a lot of hyperbolic sermonizing complete with crocodile tears; in the case of Keith Olberman, it's a combination of hyperbole mixed with much sardonic wit and sarcasm; and in the case of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert, it's a lot of sarcasm and irony laced with biting humor.
And then you have the likes of Rachel Maddow (DOB: 4/1/1973), David Gregory (DOB: 8/24/1970), David Shuster (DOB: 1967), Campbell Brown (DOB: 6/14/1968), and Michelle Malkin (DOB: 10/20/1970). As members of Generation X, they grew up as children in the wake of the end of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the economic malaise of the 1970's, and entered their teen years with the rise of the Reagan Revolution and the outbreak of AIDS. With the notable exception of Michelle Malkin, these pundits rely less on bombast and more on using pragmatic arguments based on fact and reason to state their political views, and they tend to subvert their political opponents by pointing out facts and hypocrisy. Though Rachel Maddow has been much praised on DKos for her toned-down, prgamatic approach to handling political issues, people like David Gregory and Campbell Brown have been criticized for being too cozy to right wing politicians. That may be because they grew up during the Reagan era, yer being Gen X, they will not attack their opponents by screaming and yelling.
BTW, I wanted to save a little bit of my observation to our own Markos Moulitsas himself (DOB: 9/11/1971). If there was a perfect example of how Gen X approaches political debate, all one has to do is look for video of his exchange with Tom Tancredo. Kos basically cut him down with facts and his own arguments to the point where he ran off the studio set like a spoiled brat. All the while, Kos never raised his voice or made any personal attacks.
I believe that by looking at the generational aspects of our political punditry, not only can we observe why they think the way they do, but we can discover why we ourselves believe in what we do.