Those who do not remember four years ago are doomed to repeat it
Politicians, corporations, celebrities seem able to make wild assertions not borne out by an examination of fact, and yet in this hypermedia world, it passes without only a rare or distant challenge.
But it's not only that. That's too simple. It's not only that they "get away with it." It is that these assertions then enter the cultural narrative and somewhat function as fact. Viewpoint is treated as fact.
People are able to functionally generate their own narratives and that has an impact on our politics and society. It costs us. It costs us alot.
Perhaps it has something to do with the modern iteration of "the news cycle" where most of people's news experience is now just headlines and bits. It could be a function of the "channeling" of news where you can now consume your own "news" reality which enables you to reinforce whatever you want to believe. (Not just FoxNews/MSNBC, but also websites, news aggregators, and blogs. Drudge and Firedoglake are entirely different realities.)
I don't really know what it is, but it is hugely dangerous as these fractional realities occasionally catch fire and contaminate outside their normal sub channel.
Look at the genesis of the Iraq war as an example, or perhaps the cultural craziness that led to the economic crash. In both cases, the "reality" facts were right there, but were ignored.
And this (sort of) brings me back to my starting point. With a declining sense of true fact or history, even very recent history, our society is frighteningly vulnerable to manipulation by those with the money or mechanisms to generate their own "fact" whether it's the very rich denying healthcare on a deficit claim while ignoring their own tax cuts or those pushing for military action on Iran despite our recent experiences with the facts on Iraq.
(How do the Republicans get away with George Bush's economic answers when it led to where we are today? How is anti-evolution/anti-gay treated as a valid viewpoint?)
We have become frighteningly credulous. And I really worry as to what that means.
(Sorry for the ramble. It's just been on my mind. It'll probably refine and come out later in a more concise form.)
Later: I think Sarah Palin kind of represents a watershed for this sort of a-reality. Not that she's the only one, but she's almost archetypal for a politician in my argument.
(And, frighteningly, Palin represents just an early version. Someday soon, someone better, more polished, and more qualified will do the exact same thing, but much better.
Think about that.)