Would love to hear what you think about this concept of comfortably embracing vague cliches or slogans instead of diving into meat and potatoes analysis, when it comes to politics and how the average American interacts with this phenomenon.
Assuming you're talking about the cultural difference in how Americans and Brits consume analyses- the arguments I heard most frequently from established journos when I first started using tactical and analytical examples to back up my points was that football was a sport that supposedly could not be quantified. It, according to them, was unlike baseball. It did not conform to the codifiability of something like baseball, where the analytics movement is known to have sprung forth from.
To address your question more directly, I don't think it's exclusive to culture or populous. Sport is like anything. There are people who go to the cinema to stop thinking for 2 hours and there are those who go with a notepad, intent on figuring out what it is the director meant. Football is the same. The problem is, somewhere along the way, those who go to the ground or flick on the game to forget or engage in tribal violence, became the dominant social group. And sport largely became defined by what they think it is.
TV is meant to be a mainstream form of entertainment and is often limited by time. So, their programming lends itself to what is easiest to serve. Same goes for internet virality. Endless 'First Take' style arguments are exactly that- endless. Succinct points about tactical odds and ends can still be entertaining and informative- but they are more definitive in nature.
"The problem is, somewhere along the way, those who go to the ground or flick on the game to forget or engage in tribal violence, became the dominant social group. And sport largely became defined by what they think it is."
I think this is exactly what I may have been looking for, as it could be easily applied as you said to mainstream cable news/written outlets. That somewhat regardless of allegiance to a specific party or argument, the nature of delivering news as entertainment may have led to narratives being catered to and shaped by the need to serve a dominant social group that is not interested in succinct points even when it comes to deciding how we might share resources on a suffocating planet.
Would love to hear what you think about this concept of comfortably embracing vague cliches or slogans instead of diving into meat and potatoes analysis, when it comes to politics and how the average American interacts with this phenomenon.
Assuming you're talking about the cultural difference in how Americans and Brits consume analyses- the arguments I heard most frequently from established journos when I first started using tactical and analytical examples to back up my points was that football was a sport that supposedly could not be quantified. It, according to them, was unlike baseball. It did not conform to the codifiability of something like baseball, where the analytics movement is known to have sprung forth from.
To address your question more directly, I don't think it's exclusive to culture or populous. Sport is like anything. There are people who go to the cinema to stop thinking for 2 hours and there are those who go with a notepad, intent on figuring out what it is the director meant. Football is the same. The problem is, somewhere along the way, those who go to the ground or flick on the game to forget or engage in tribal violence, became the dominant social group. And sport largely became defined by what they think it is.
TV is meant to be a mainstream form of entertainment and is often limited by time. So, their programming lends itself to what is easiest to serve. Same goes for internet virality. Endless 'First Take' style arguments are exactly that- endless. Succinct points about tactical odds and ends can still be entertaining and informative- but they are more definitive in nature.
"The problem is, somewhere along the way, those who go to the ground or flick on the game to forget or engage in tribal violence, became the dominant social group. And sport largely became defined by what they think it is."
I think this is exactly what I may have been looking for, as it could be easily applied as you said to mainstream cable news/written outlets. That somewhat regardless of allegiance to a specific party or argument, the nature of delivering news as entertainment may have led to narratives being catered to and shaped by the need to serve a dominant social group that is not interested in succinct points even when it comes to deciding how we might share resources on a suffocating planet.