"If I could cause these thoughts to come, to stand on this paper, I could read what I mean. May I? May I?" --Karen Peris

Sunday, May 1, 2011

"Us" Against "Them"

Rolling Stone has a political feature in each issue called, “Threat Assessment: The Good, The Bad, and The Scary,” in which they place news stories on a sort of sliding scale where then rank items as either “With Us” (Good) or “Against Us" (Bad/Scary). Interestingly enough, the good, “With Us” items are on the left side, which is shaded blue, and the bad, scary, “Against Us” points are on the right, which is colored, appropriately, red.

Who exactly is the “Us” in this scenario? Is it fair that the compilers of the sidebar assume that their readers are both leftward leaning and Democrats?

The following are some examples that all readers of Rolling Stone are supposed to herald or abhor (although many are undeniably funny):

With us: “Bedbugs infest Fox News Studio”; “Taliban mortar fire disrupts Toby Keith concert in Afghanistan”; “Ecuador signs constitution giving nature inalienable rights.”

Against Us: “Obama chooses Bud Light for 'Beer Summit'"; “Legal name of candidate running to replace Sen. Larry Craig: 'Pro-Life.'”

What if I like Bud Light? Or Toby Keith? Does that make me a bad person? I had no idea Rolling Stone was so snobby.

It would be one thing if they simply wrote about their opinion, but to assume that their readers all fall within the “with us” end of the spectrum is insulting. Perhaps the column’s creators are believers in absolute truth?