BEING THERE 2.0
I'm sure I've said this before in other contexts, but as I read about Sarah Palin's pizza powwow with Donald Trump, and about the speculation (by Chris Good of The Atlantic) that, among other things, she may actually be seeking his endorsement, and especially as I read that her silly publicity tour is being run in a way that deceives the press as to her itinerary, to which the press is reacting not in the sensible way, by blowing her off, but by desperately tailgating her, hoping not to miss any of the empty pseudo-content she's providing ... well, as I read all that, I found my thoughts turning to Being There.
This tells me that if Being There really happened, it wouldn't center on a mentally challenged person whose simplistic utterances are mistaken for great wisdom. A real-life Being There would involve someone we know is saying things that are empty and vacuous -- but which we find (or at least the media finds) irresistible anyway. The media would say, "Here's what the fabulously telegenic idiot is saying! Here's what the fabulously telegenic idiot is doing! Isn't it fascinating? Isn't it profound idiocy?"
We'd know we were hearing empty platitudes -- and we'd cling to every word anyway, or at least the press would.
And why am I putting this in the conditional tense? This isn't vaguely similar to what's happening now -- it's almost exactly what's happening now.