[Muncle]

I do believe we've strayed off topic a bit. BTK broached the subject of the perspective of the "Silent Majority" (SM) and their action/inaction. His position seems to be that this SM is dissatisfied with the status quo, supports the desire for change, but refuses to take an active part in any movement for change. The SM is satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let others do the work. I disagree.

The term itself goes back to a Nixon speech of the late 60's referring to the vast majority of Americans who did not demonstrate or protest against the government and its actions, especially in Vietnam. As is their wont, those protesters and the media assumed that this majority of people did not actively support their cause and participate because they did not understand it, that they just didn't get it, or they did support it but did not want to get involved. However, as the election debacle of 1972 demonstrated, the SM was silent not for those reasons but because they were satisfied with what the government was doing, at least in comparison to the alternatives offered.

Okay, I said all that to say this . . . in almost any movement for change, be it international, national, or within TV, those pushing change are an infinitesimal part of the population. Others in favor of that change are likely a minority, possibly even a majority, but to them the issue is of little importance, a nice to have, but really who cares. The real SM is either in favor of the status quo or is solidly ambivalent. Two people carrying protest signs get attention regardless of their cause, be it the end of apartheid or outlawing serving peas in a school lunch program. 99.999% of the population not protesting does not get on the news. A movement for change is not an iceberg. There is not necessarily a massive portion below the water. Sometimes it's just a chunk of ice floating by. What you see is all there is.

But then, I could be wrong.